The Great Gatsby - Prose Commentary On Pages 17-18

COMMENTARY ON THE GREAT GATSBY
PAGES 17-18

The Great Gatsby, a novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, is a novel set in the early 1920’s in America. The excerpt, pages 17 to 18, revolves around Nick Caraway’s encounter with his distant cousins at their mansion. Fitzgerald develops his theme of gender representation, action VS. inaction and the various racial and class divisions in America through this excerpt through features of prose such as literal and non-literal language, grammar and dialogue.

The theme of gender representation is emanated through the depiction of the banality of the female domestic livelihood. This theme does merge, overlap and combine with the theme of action vs. inaction simultaneously.
Daisy’s banal livelihood as a female and attempt to entertain herself alongside her guests is exuded through her syntax, her sentence type reflects her absent minded character as she repeats the subject of her sentence whilst making a statement, “do you always watch…and then miss it? I always watch… and then miss it”. Furthermore, not only is the vapid banality of life expressed through adjectives such as “yawned”, but also the theme of action vs. inaction is exuded as there is juxtaposition, as Jordan wished to “plan something” but then went ahead to “yawn”. Hence, Fitzgerald expresses the women to be inactive. Not only does he express them to be inactive but gender representation depicts them to be dependent on the males, as Daisy also actively wishes to “plan something” but feels compelled to turn to a man, her husband, “helplessly”. In addition to that, syntax, dialogue and grammar help to identify Daisy’s character as a peevish, childish, immature and infant-like as she lacks focus but seemingly is forced to be that way. Daisy, in the midst of “plan[ning] something”, “complained” that Tom “hurt” her “little finger” that is now “black and blue”. Fitzgerald, while probing the depths of Daisy’s character, hints at the fact that perhaps women are subject to men in this society, they tend to lack focus because that is what society expects of them, to be characterless, and also hints at the fact that Daisy is subject to abuse because men are by in large stronger figures, which explains why Daisy accuses Tom and expresses resentment for marrying a “brute” and a “hulking physical specimen”. The list Fitzgerald allows Daisy to provide the readers with exhibits the depiction of men in this upper-class society and perhaps how they are meant to be dominant, hence resulting in Daisy’s “black and blue” knuckle. Which also explains why she must no longer involve herself in his affairs, because he will eventually dismiss her either way, “I hate that word, hulking”, rather than acknowledge what she vociferates. Furthermore, Fitzgerald continues to explore the theme of gender representation and action vs. inaction by permitting Jordan to consider making another plan such as instigating Daisy to “live in California”, but once again, they are interrupted, dismissed and cast aside by a man, Tom, as he interrupted her by “shifting heavily”, the adjective and noun express Tom’s position in the household, he has the power to do things “heavily” enough to silence anyone. Hence, the women are left inactive, silenced and not acknowledged. However, to express further resentment at having being compelled to be a certain women in this society, Daisy mocks Tom in Nick’s company to aggravate him and allow her to expel her discontent. Even though she attempts to seem like one of the women of that society by appearing dim-witted, “[Tom] reads deep books with long words”, she attacks Tom by agreeing with his ‘intellectual’ racist comments mockingly, as she “winked” at Nick.

Already taking into account gender divisions in America, Fitzgerald moves onto utilizing Tom’s dialogue, syntax and lexis, to highlight the class and race divisions that existed in the 1920’s. Tom exudes his wealthy appeal by talking of things he may or may not be familiar with, but chooses to weave into conversation at any opportunity he gets simply because talking of those things is considered ‘talk of the wealthy’. Tom’s repetition of the phrase “all scientific” seems loosely used as he attempts to sound intellectual but utilizes the word “all” to encompass what the books he reads are about, seeing as he knows naught himself. Tom feels inclined to associate civilization with “science and art” as though that is what the upper-class should feel inclined to talk about, which explains why he deems it fit to break out “violently” when talking of such things. Tom claims he reads intellectual books, books that “everyone ought to read”, Fitzgerald deliberately uses this dialogue to allow Tom to express his wealth, presuming that everyone should be wealthy. But Nick’s ignorance of the existence of such books sets up a contrast against Tom and shows that Nick could be in the middle class, whereas Tom is considered wealthy upper-class. Through hyphenated phraseology, and nouns “insisted” and “impatiently”, Fitzgerald allows Tom to appear to readers as desperately inclined to insinuate how wealthy and well-educated he is and doesn’t like to be interrupted when he is discussing important upper-class matters of science.

American divisions and racial prejudices are set up in this excerpt as Fitzgerald allows Tom’s racial remarks to resonate in attempt to sound intellectual. Hyphenated phraseology is once again utilized as Tom attempts to find a means in which to express what will happen to the ‘white race’ if the ‘white’s don’t “look out”, he seems to be at a loss for words (signified by the hyphen) then abruptly claims it will be “utterly submerged”. He clearly wishes to seem confident in his racist remarks, but is simply racist without a reason; he claims it’s “proven”. He goes so far as to confidently exclaiming that the whites are the “dominant race”. He perceives himself to be confident, dominant, powerful, and influential and in the bargain appears racist, thus allowing Fitzgerald to exhibit how divided America really was in the 1920’s, whence the upper class wouldn’t associate themselves with the coloreds or the poor, and deem them unfit for association.

Even though the passage is narrated in 1^st person by not the author, but a character in the novel itself, Nick, it may seem that the views could possibly be biased, prejudiced and subjective. Hence, the point of view is beheld by Nick itself, not the author, and may not be reliable due to personal dislike on his part towards Tom, “something pathetic in his concentration”. However, most of the views eluded by the characters are in the form of dialogue, and through their syntax, grammar and lexis, the authors intent was accomplished, to probe further into the themes of divisions in America and action vs. inaction.

"COUNTER-ATTACK" By Siegfried Sassoon

VIVID DESCRIPTIONS OF THE DEAD:
One of the means in which Sassoon conveys the critical approach to governments and simultaneously sheds light on the tragic and horrific experiences of the soldiers is by presenting the readers with vivid descriptions of the dead. The clarity, the matter-of-fact tone and the natural rhythm of the poem allows for the vivid descriptions to exude a sense of normalcy in the eyes of the soldiers.
The phrase, “trunks, face downward’, is an explicit and graphic image of decapitated bodies that are left unburied, offering the readers an excessively degrading and grotesque image. To further offer to the reader’s graphic images that are extremely degrading is the phrase, “naked, sodden buttocks”. The aforementioned phrase is an expression of body parts that are not usually exposed and have become so now and this shows the unnaturalness of the situation, but with the lack of a sentimental approach, there is a sense of normalcy to the unusual situation. The fact that the soldiers “slept” offers a realistic portrayal to shock with an addition of normality, their death is not taken into account as soldiers can do naught but take note of fellow soldiers suffering and continue to fight for survival. Instead of dying, they slept sound because they are now at mercy after all the agony they went through, and are left sleeping, above the ground as in this dire situation they cannot be buried. And thus, leaving the soldiers unburied depicts the frenzy the soldiers are enduring as they respond to an attack.

IOC THESIS FOR "COUNTER-ATTACK" BY SIEGFRIED SASSOON

Counter-attack, by Siegfried Sassoon, is an exposition of the magnitude of the horrors of war in the very midst of battle. The elements of the poem, such as poetic voice, structure, diction, imagery and tone, shed light on the idea of war that he tries to convey effectively. Yet subsequently, Sassoon’s intentions and the conclusion of the narrative poem alongside the graphic imagery and the introduction of a character to familiarize with, provides Sassoon with an opportunity to evoke sympathy within the readers.

PERSONAL RESPONSE TO SIEGFRIED SASSOON'S "LAMENTATIONS"

Sassoon’s intentions on writing this poem were to shed light on the apathy of the ignorant Officers towards their damaged soldiers due to a wide chasm between the two. Sassoon was a soldier and experienced the agony of fighting on the front line but also experienced a blind eye being turned to him and his horrible experiences whereas the home front was concerned, including Officers.
The poet does so through the use of various poetic devices. One of them being imagery, Sassoon utilizes the metaphor “blind darkness” to highlight the blindness (and ignorance) of the officers as they aren’t compelled or obliged to face the scope for horror on the front line.
In addition to that metaphor, the poet creates an extended image wherein he ironically and satirically dehumanizes the soldier by giving him animal-like qualities, but only does so because he takes on the persona of the Officers, hence, further insinuating the lack of compassion on the Officer’s front through the use of such negative words and heightening the sympathy that Sassoon insinuates must be felt for the soldiers. The very fact that he is taking on a persona and expressing voice of disdain for the soldier, allows for Sassoon to get readers sympathy and condemn the Officer, and thus, the poem becomes satirical. To further heighten the purpose of taking on the persona of the Officer, there is an inclusion of a very flippant tone that surmise the Officers apathy, “All because…”.
Also noticeable is the alliteration, caesura and punctuation that doesn’t allow for the poem to flow freely and so slows the pace. Creating breaks in lines and forming fragmented, disjointed lines highlights the awkwardness of the Officer, “Puzzled, patient”. But when the focus is shifted to the soldier, the lines are free running with lists and this allows for the readers to believe that the soldier’s emotions are expressed in a complete outflow of emotion and paroxysm of despair.
The break in lines and enjambment also highlight the chasm and the lack of connection, relation and compassion between the soldiers and the Officers. Not only do break in lines and enjambment do the aforementioned, but so does the rhyme scheme, and the break in rhythm at the phrase “to stop…west”, these two lines seem to be the central message of the poem and it perfectly depicts the chasm and difference between the two individuals, thus highlighting the indifference of the ignorant Officers.
The aforementioned poetic devices effectively achieve Sassoon’s intentions of highlighting the effect the war had on men and how those who didn’t experience it were blinded by ignorance and allowed for that chasm to grow and thus allowed for their indifference and lack of compassion to be exhibited further.
Sassoon also allowed for readers to make an association and sympathize with the soldier despite his stark and raving mad description as we already pinpoint the Officer’s apathetic persona and how it is unaware and obstinate. Thus, as the poem picks up momentum and we make note of the flippant tone, we immediately begin to realize the depth of horror the soldiers go through and the one thing that amplifies it is the sheer delight at ignorance from the indifferent, adamant Officers. Hence, readers begin to sympathize greatly with the soldiers and condemn and express resentment towards the Officers and authorities that Sassoon is laying accusations on.

PERSONAL RESPONSE TO SIEGFRIEND SASSOON'S "LAMENTATIONS"

Sassoon’s intentions on writing this poem were to shed light on the apathy of the ignorant Officers towards their damaged soldiers due to a wide chasm between the two. Sassoon was a soldier and experienced the agony of fighting on the front line but also experienced a blind eye being turned to him and his horrible experiences whereas the home front was concerned, including Officers.
The poet does so through the use of various poetic devices. One of them being imagery, Sassoon utilizes the metaphor “blind darkness” to highlight the blindness (and ignorance) of the officers as they aren’t compelled or obliged to face the scope for horror on the front line.
In addition to that metaphor, the poet creates an extended image wherein he ironically and satirically dehumanizes the soldier by giving him animal-like qualities, but only does so because he takes on the persona of the Officers, hence, further insinuating the lack of compassion on the Officer’s front through the use of such negative words and heightening the sympathy that Sassoon insinuates must be felt for the soldiers. The very fact that he is taking on a persona and expressing voice of disdain for the soldier, allows for Sassoon to get readers sympathy and condemn the Officer, and thus, the poem becomes satirical. To further heighten the purpose of taking on the persona of the Officer, there is an inclusion of a very flippant tone that surmise the Officers apathy, “All because…”.
Also noticeable is the alliteration, caesura and punctuation that doesn’t allow for the poem to flow freely and so slows the pace. Creating breaks in lines and forming fragmented, disjointed lines highlights the awkwardness of the Officer, “Puzzled, patient”. But when the focus is shifted to the soldier, the lines are free running with lists and this allows for the readers to believe that the soldier’s emotions are expressed in a complete outflow of emotion and paroxysm of despair.
The break in lines and enjambment also highlight the chasm and the lack of connection, relation and compassion between the soldiers and the Officers. Not only do break in lines and enjambment do the aforementioned, but so does the rhyme scheme, and the break in rhythm at the phrase “to stop…west”, these two lines seem to be the central message of the poem and it perfectly depicts the chasm and difference between the two individuals, thus highlighting the indifference of the ignorant Officers.
The aforementioned poetic devices effectively achieve Sassoon’s intentions of highlighting the effect the war had on men and how those who didn’t experience it were blinded by ignorance and allowed for that chasm to grow and thus allowed for their indifference and lack of compassion to be exhibited further.
Sassoon also allowed for readers to make an association and sympathize with the soldier despite his stark and raving mad description as we already pinpoint the Officer’s apathetic persona and how it is unaware and obstinate. Thus, as the poem picks up momentum and we make note of the flippant tone, we immediately begin to realize the depth of horror the soldiers go through and the one thing that amplifies it is the sheer delight at ignorance from the indifferent, adamant Officers. Hence, readers begin to sympathize greatly with the soldiers and condemn and express resentment towards the Officers and authorities that Sassoon is laying accusations to.

THEME OF POWER IN ACT 2 OF DEATH AND THE MAIDEN

In Dorfman’s “Death and the Maiden”, the audience is apprised of the resonating theme of power in Act 2 of the play. The positions of, and people in power perpetually fluctuates, at one point Paulina is dominant, obstinate and in power, at another Gerardo exerts his full potential to steer the situation in a direction that suits him best and at another point, both succumb to a situation though not one as helpless as Roberto’s. Also, this reversal of roles sheds light on Paulina’s rise to power in her domestic abode and her eventual submission to her husband, Gerardo’s fall in supremacy in his own home and need to regain it, and Roberto’s emasculation due to his inability to regain strength over a woman. Therefore, through this theme of power, Dorfman also sheds light on gender and social stereotypes and the strengths and flaws of these three characters.

“I was wild and fearless”, is a quote that effectively demonstrates Paulina’s strength of character, but the past participle enables the audience to think that perhaps in her domestic life she is no longer wild and fearless but frustrated and terrified. Yet her control of the situation and her masculine prop, the gun, tells the audience that even though she may be fearful, she is still in power. However, she is only in power in this current situation, because otherwise, she has always depended on Gerardo, even after her release she went straight to him. In addition to that, Dorfman sheds light on social stereotypes wherein the woman is submissive to a man and he is in power regarding the domestic front, “Of course I’m going to listen to you, haven’t I always listened to you?”, here we can see through this rhetorical and sarcastic question that she has, indeed, no intentions of listening to her husband, but in the past she was submissive in their personal life, yet finally she is gaining some power over him.

To further demonstrate her rise to power on the domestic and personal front between her and her spouse, there is perpetual use of imperatives. Paulina’s imperative mood, “He wants water, Gerardo”, “tie him up again”, “tighter”, exhibits her neglect for stereotypical societal roles wherein the man has the authority over the woman. “But as usual, you don’t believe me”, is a phrase that indicates to the audience, that Paulina has understood her lack of ability to hold some form of superiority in their relationship and is constantly undermined, yet this one time she will strive to maintain her power of Gerardo, no matter how sturdy his attempts are to dissuade her.

However, at this point, we see the fluctuation of power, as she drops her guard considerably as she slowly loses her position of power to Gerardo’s affection. “Dear, dear Paulie, please don’t be so difficult” is what Gerardo lovingly chides and she submits to him to some extent. Yet another variation in the higher position of power results in Paulina retrieving her status as the influential one back as she begins to treat Gerardo as a child. She uses imperatives and aggressively prompts him as though she is an instructor and he is uncomfortably at her mercy to answer her, “Say it. Say it now. Tell me, tell me. And what else?”

The reason she resorts to willingly being the one who has authority and influence is because she has this innate desire to take the situation in her own hands as no one else will. She states, “Let me have my say” and “So now darling, tell me who do I go to now?” and this indicates that she may not have any power in court, but she does in the privacy and security of her own house and she refuses to be silenced any further, and her determined attitude to receive well-appointed justice enables her to be obstinate and hell-bent. Nothing will dissuade her as long as she is the significant, overriding character in the present moment, this is indicated by her repetition of “what I want”, “you know what I want?” “That’s what I want.” Her needs simply must be met and she shall not take no for an answer.

Not only is Gerardo at the receiving end of her power and potential to steer this situation in any direction she chooses, but Roberto is too, and even more severely helpless. She demonstrates her power on him as she “slowly passes her hands up and down his body”, she may have gone from being repulsed at his touch to teasing him in order to impose herself on him at her own free will. She is in an authoritative mood as she confidently cuts Roberto off and leaves him without any right to speech, and again there is use of imperatives and short sentences to impose her regulations on him, “Threatening, yes you were. Let’s get this clear. Threat time is over. Out there you bastards may still give out the orders, but in here I’m in command, now is that clear?” this aforementioned repetitive and explicit phrase signifies her potential hold over him and, to some extent, sheds light on her sadistic nature as she is in charge and enjoying it.

Also, in this act, Dorfman lays bare the contempt for stereotypical societal views that women feel. Paulina is frustrated at the fact that for the past 15 years she has not formed any bright future prospects on the professional front and is financially dependent, and all she is, is the “ideal housewife”. She vents on Roberto, not having much evidence of his guilt; she may have been financial independent were it not for her kidnapping. And while she is resenting and punishing him for it, she uses her powerful position to get away from everyday domesticity. And she also, when in power, mocks the role of women as solely ‘homemakers’, “snap your fingers and I’ll come running.”

Another, second, significant character in this Act who’s position of power perpetually fluctuates is Gerardo. Prior to this incident, we as audience are well-aware of his influential post in the truth commission. On the professional front Gerardo is a man of power, yet his position of power has gone astray in his own abode as Paulina takes matters in her own two hands. In fact, due to her misconduct and disagreement with the well-appointed ways of the court, she will be the reason being he might lose his job in the near future and this leaves him furthermore helpless.

Gerardo does, however, have every intention to forcefully impose his authority on her at every instance he gets. “I want you to…”, “I want you to…”, “Don’t interrupt”, “Shut up”. But he fruitlessly exercises his authority on her as she still persists on exerting her own authority and enforcing orders wherein he is left feeble, unaided and helpless. He succumbs restlessly to her demands.
However, he swiftly regains control and uses his affection as a tool to do so, “(Whispering to her)”, “oh my love, oh my love”.

Soon after, from the position of a feeble, unaided man who is at his wife’s disposal, he takes on the new role of interrogator. He confidently cuts of Roberto at every sentence to question him of things that he may require such as “bread”, and shows disregard for his dire predicament. Perhaps after he draws a link between Roberto quoting Nietzsche to him and Paulina, he starts to believe her and so joins her in her position of power of conveniently inflicting Roberto with misery.

Following that, Gerardo soon loses his power to Roberto; he becomes vulnerable to Roberto’s tactic of engaging his captors with unnecessary thoughts in order to free himself. He criticizes Gerardo’s masculinity and insinuates that he has been emasculated, “cut your balls off”. Gerardo inevitably gets agitated and makes an immediate attempt to regain his power by abusing Roberto and making sure that he is well aware that he has no hope without him. However, Roberto swiftly strips Gerardo of his momentary prime of power by exclaiming “Don’t go, don’t call her”. So once again Gerardo is left to be rendered not that influential, as Roberto is still at the mercy of Paulina, not Gerardo. Gerardo, on the other hand, refuses to acknowledge that and suggests that his wife is still within his control, knowing fully that she isn’t, which is why he “(sadly and bitterly)” states “who gives a fuck what she thinks…” So to further suggest that his wife is within his control, he states that he will venture to call Paulina as Roberto supposedly “needs to piss”, as Paulina previously stated, “if he wants to piss, snap your fingers and I’ll come running.” Hence, Gerardo demonstrates to Roberto that he will regain his control over his wife and yet simultaneously not abuse his control over Roberto.

Regarding Roberto, however, it is clear to the audience that Roberto is helpless through and through, especially since he is emasculated by Paulina, being tied up and subject to a woman’s threats and abuse. There are some instances where he is seemingly more empowered than Gerardo, when Paulina freely vents to Roberto it is clear to the audience that Roberto has the power to let Paulina have her say and speak freely, something she cannot do with Gerardo in their relationship. Roberto may seemingly have some bright glimpses of being set free, but he all-in-all is subject to abuse by his captor, Paulina. He does, for a few instances threaten Paulina and Gerardo to set him free, “I forbid you to…”, “what you must do is untie me immediately.” However, he is clearly in no position to make demands or impose authority.

Therefore, it is significantly demonstrated throughout the entire Act 2 that Dorfman intended to exhibit the theme of power through these three characters and how it is perpetually fluctuating in each individual case. It is through the reversal of roles that we see the characters strengths, weaknesses and get a glimpse of stereotypical societal views.

Theme of power in Act 2

Comment on the theme of power as shown in Act 2.

In Act 2, Paulina gains absolute power and authority over the situation and the people around her, Gerardo and Roberto. Throughout the act, Paulina constantly reminds Roberto of what he had (presumably) said to her during the days when she was victimized. Dorfman could have intentionally put in these lines to show the audience that Paulina there has been a role reversal here. The victimized has become the oppressor and vice versa. Also, at first, it seems that even Gerardo has no power over the situation or Paulina at all. Gerardo holds no power over the situation. However, as the act proceeds, he gradually gains more and more control.

Paulina’s total control of the situation slowly gets weakened as Gerardo gains more control. However, she still retains a lot of power as she has a weapon and doesn’t appear to be in a sound state of mind and hence threatening. This is an irony because Gerardo is supposed to be a man of great authority, chosen as a member of the ‘Truth Commission” to lead the people to uphold justice and reveal the truth and so he should have power and authority wherever he is and whatever situation he is in.

So there is a ‘transition’ of power from Paulina to Gerardo although it is insignificant and Gerardo still has very little control over the situation. This ‘transition’ can be seen from the start of the act up to page 39. Here we see Gerardo attempting to dissuade Paulina from doing anything to Roberto and just free him. The transition is shown especially from page 35 to 37 when Gerardo tries to dissuade her by talking to her privately. This seems to weaken her a little and this gives a bit more power to Gerardo.

However, on page 40, it is Gerardo and Paulina who gets convinced. On top of the page, we see Paulina mention the doctor who had torture and raped her had quoted Nietzsche before and put on music composed by Schubert. Then Gerardo repeats Nietzsche as he had heard Roberto mention Nietzsche before. This destroys any sort of power or authority Roberto has on Gerardo.
Roberto had power over Gerardo because his wife is his responsibility. Roberto had also helped him previously on the road and so the task of dissuading Paulina and persuading her to let Roberto go should be Gerardo’s. However, towards the end of the play, Roberto’s words and ridiculous assumptions, shown in this quote, “Playing roles, she’s bad, you’re good, to see if you can get me to confess that way. And once I’ve confessed, you’re the one who’s going to kill me, it’s what any man would do, any real man, if they’d raped his wife, it’s what I would do if somebody had raped my wife. Cut your balls off. So tell me: you think I’m that fucking doctor, don’t you?” causes the scale of power between Roberto and Gerardo to shift to Gerardo. What Roberto says angers Gerardo and all the frustration and stress that had been building up in Gerardo finally bursts and causes him to believe Paulina and gives him the desire to kill Roberto.

Hence, power fluctuates and shifts from one character to another, among the 3 characters we see in the act.
547 words

IBSEN'S PRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN HEDDA GABLER - ARUSHA

Comment on Ibsen’s presentation of Women in Hedda Gabler.

Hedda Gabler, a play by the highly acclaimed realist playwright Henrik Ibsen, is set in 1890 in the household of The Tesman’s.
The play sheds light on the principles and social conditions of the 1890’s (which is during the Victorian Era) and does so through the feature of three main women who are connected but come from different backgrounds and personalities. These women are Hedda Gabler, her Aunt Julle and her character foil, Thea Elvsted. Ibsen presents each of these women differently and it is clearly noted that Hedda is portrayed, to some extent, as a New Woman from a high social standing who shows disregard toward the limits that society imposes on her, yet is troubled at the thought of rebelling against social expectations and opinions. And her Aunt Julle is represented to be a middle class woman who conforms to society’s expectations and to some extent imposes them on Hedda, and Thea Elvsted is a character foil for Hedda, a mirror opposite from a lower social standing who brings out Hedda’s complex flaws and is to some extent a New Woman too.

In the first instance, it is clearly depicted to us that Hedda is a General’s daughter and hence, we are led to believe that she comes from a wealthy and elite background. Also, she is dressed elegantly, “in a tasteful, somewhat loose-fitting gown” and her figure is “aristocratic and elegant”. We also take note of the fact that she is married to a man whose family she has no respect for; perhaps because they are from a lower class, as she mistakes her husband’s aunt, Aunt Julle’s hat to be the maids and later reveals to the audience that she did so intentionally to show her aversion towards the family due to their lack of social standing. Hence, it is clear to us in the first instance that Hedda, with her “steel grey and cold” eyes, is a very detestable, unaffectionate and dispassionate person. Her unaffectionate persona is shed light on as she “offers her hand” to her husband’s Aunt, and she refuses to greet her appropriately, also we are apprised of her unaffectionate persona as she takes no interest in her husband’s love for a pair of slippers that are of sentimental value to him, “thank you, they wouldn’t appeal to me.”
She also seems to be an outcast in her own home, as she stands at the doorway to make her entrance until her husband notices her, therefore, we see that she is on the threshold of the Tesman’s familiarity, and is reluctant to enter freely.
Hence, from the above mentioned facets of Hedda’s personality, we see that she rebels in vain hope that she can express her unexpressed feelings through these hostile statements and actions and Ibsen portrays Hedda to be so, merely because he is shedding light on Class Warfare of that time.

In addition to that, Ibsen represents Hedda to have a violent, demonic and jealous facet to her personality. This is portrayed through several instances, one being her openly stating her desire to occupy herself with her “pistols” and using it to playfully threaten Mr.Brack, not only does she threaten, but gives it to Eijlert Lovborg in hope for him to end his life “beautifully” where as she cannot differentiate between death and beauty, and upon hearing about his death she doesn’t not even feign concern as she ponders over why he didn’t shoot himself in the temple out of courage. Not only did she hand him the pistol to end his life, but she has, prior to this, “threatened to shoot him”. And her manipulative, demonic aspect shines through as Thea recites the story of Eijlert’s unknown ex lover threatening to shoot him, and Hedda is “cold and collected” and immediately interrupts her, “Oh Rubbish! People don’t’ have such things here” and this indicates that not only does she lie about her being in possession of pistols, but interrupts her in addition to lying in order to shadow that perhaps she was previously involved with Eijlert and wishes to keep it a secret.
Her desire to utilize her pistols is her way to experience power and freedom, and her machinations expose the audience to her demonic and jealous nature. She offers to burn Eijlert’s and Thea’s manuscript in order to find some way to increase the chances of brighter future prospects for her husband, since he cannot make sufficient headway on his own and this doesn’t benefit her, so that leads us to believe that she is exceedingly selfish and in need of power. When she does burn the manuscript out of spite and jealousy, she exclaims “Now I’m burning your child Thea! With your curly hair! I’m burning…I’m burning your child.” The aforementioned phrase depicts a hint of violence within her, and her jealousy is depicted when she conceals an “involuntary sneer” when Thea talks of her constructive involvement in Eijlert’s life.
Not only is Hedda mildly demonic, but she is extremely manipulative, she has a pretentious friendship with Thea and forces her to into telling her every detail of her relationship with Lovborg, and she has a pretentious relationship with Lovborg, to whom she hands the weapons that he’ll use to end and ruin his life, Alcohol and a Pistol. Hedda has no concern for Thea, as she instigates Lovborg to go the party, and instigates an argument between the two, then she “passionately grips Thea in her arms” and says “I think I’ll burn your hair off after all.” Perhaps her violence and need to be in power comes from her need to find an expressive outlet and a means of being free, she longs for freedom and has all this while been exposed to being a Generals Daughter, and now has no social life nor no social standing and is limited by her position as a woman. Hence, we can see that, even though Ibsen wishes to portray Hedda as a New Woman to some extent, a woman who WISHES to push against the limits of society, she still takes no initiative steps towards her freedom because she simply CANNOT. She is depicted to be barren and sterile as she has no keen desire to expand her knowledge horizons, unlike Thea, and (this makes Thea more of a character foil of Hedda’s) she shows no interest in the manuscript. Yet she still defies a prototypical Victorian era woman who conforms to society, because she has a “lust for life” as Eijlert states. Yet she has a dread for scandals, and that is why she takes no initiative steps, and her involvement in Eijlert’s death is a scandal, and this leads to her fall in the end, her death.

Hedda is portrayed to be so because Ibsen wishes to shed light on the societal views of that point in history, Hedda’s traits and her boredom allow her to carry out her own devilish machinations because that is rebellion against the restrictions of society and because she lacks purpose and inspiration in her life, she is helpless. Yet, she wishes to be in power. She is seemingly a new woman, who scorns society and cannot change it. She is a victim of societal pressures, for example, she has no maternal instincts and feels no motherly inclination, yet she is perpetually reminded (and dreads) her pregnancy, “it’s already September…” Yet Mr.Brack insinuates that she MUST have a child by another year, “we’ll talk about it in a year’s time, at the latest.” She is also expected to have an orderly domestic and married life, yet she feels no inclination to shower her husband with love, for she feels no passion for him, and she also has interests in unfeminine domestic life (such as hobbies regarding her pistols) and this is looked down upon at that point in time. Her lack of inspiration allows for the sadistic in her to appear, and for her to gain importance and power. However, her own machinations have their consequence and soon Mr.Brack has power over her, “Dearest Hedda, believe me, I shall not abuse the position” yet the very idea that she is subject to his whims and fancies, “Brack stands over her, leaning against the armchair”, makes her despise him for taking her freedom away because she loves it too much, and hence, this results in her death. Mostly because she has nothing left, even her husband has moved on to Thea. Thea is perhaps the only one who in the end receives it all. She is a character foil to Hedda, someone who is a new woman to some extent, but doesn’t desire for the kind of freedom Hedda does, she is independent, has a keen interest in expanding her educational horizons, and yet is dependent on a man and much more subtle than Hedda. She conforms to society and to some extent, much like Hedda, is concerned about society’s thoughts and opinions. However, even though she seems impressionable and docile, and is a character foil to Hedda, the end result is that she receives everything and is thereafter rendered, conniving and influential.

Therefore, we can conclude that the women present in Henrik Ibsen’s “Hedda Gabler”, are made to represent in some form, society and its pressures and are indeed, different to each other yet share some similarities.