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.

Attention TRUC, DANIEL and VINCENT...

I am still waiting for your response to the statement; 'a thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased.'

National Guilt - Hans Frank Quote Response

“A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased.”

This quote revolves around the national guilt of the German people during World War 2 and their crimes committed by Hitler’s Germany. It was said by Hans Frank, a former Nazi governor of Poland. In some aspects, I do agree with the statement above. However, there are other areas in which I disagree that the guilt of Germany will not be erased.

I strongly believe that future generations after WW2 will still feel that they are responsible for the crimes committed by Hitler’s Germany. They feel as if they cannot wash the blood off their hands. In an article, Bernard Schlink (author of ‘The Reader’) pointed out that “Children inevitably share some of that guilt...Not because they were directly involved but their parents, teachers and those they look up to as people of admiration may have had a concealed past.” If a child was suddenly told that his or her father was involved in the holocaust and slaughtered many lives, the child would be full of regret and would immediately feel the desire to re-pay the debts his or her father had caused to the Jews. In essence, I believe that the guilt would not fade away. By having this guilt and remorse created by future generations, it makes them pay homage to the victims of the Holocaust, acknowledging that Jews were a serious victim of torture, torment and slaughter. In this way, Jews who were involved in the Holocaust and the children of the victims are able to be at peace and gain respect and acknowledgement from the outside world. Although victims of the Holocaust may never forgive Germany for exposing them to genocide, they know that Germany acknowledges that they are guilty and as long as history stands, they will always feel regret and do not wish to impose any prolonging threats against the Jews made by their ancestors.

However, society, as a whole, should move onward and need not remind themselves about the atrocities of WW2 and the Nazi’s whenever they hear the word “German” or “Germany” in the next thousand years. There are those who have become ashamed of calling themselves “German” because of WW2. It is true that one must recount history, learning about mistakes in the past to advance and learn for the future. But it does not need to be exaggerated like Frank’s quote. The Crusades between the Christians and Muslims occurred roughly a thousand years ago, yet no strong collective guilt is felt between Christians today. There are no memorials to celebrate the end of the Crusades, neither are there any emphatic gestures of apology today. In a thousand years time, would the same occur for the Holocaust? Would people forget about the atrocities although it has been engraved in the sandstones of history? Although I strongly believe that the victims of the Holocaust should be remembered, we cannot guarantee that the collective guilt of Germans will never be erased.

I do believe that the guilt caused by the Nazis of those who were not involved will be difficult to erase. But as history has told us with the Crusades, this “guilt” defined by Frank may not last for a thousand years. It could fade away as time burries the events of the past. This guilt felt by Germans who were not involved in WW2 should not be taken lightly. 11 million to 17 million of Jews were slaughtered for no definite reason. This guilt should last as a reminder and a gesture remembrance to the countless victims killed during the Holocaust.

HANS FRANK QUOTATION - My response, By Arusha.

Hans Frank, the Nazi governor of Poland, stated right after the Nuremberg trials that “A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased”
The aforementioned quote was said during a time of immense feelings of guilt, remorse, despondency. At this point, it was an intense time, Hans Frank seemed to have honestly uttered this statement, however, that is arguable.

I would agree with Hans Frank’s statement, I believe that the guilt of the Nazi’s is a collective guilt felt by the people of Germany. I say so for the mere reason that those who were NOT directly involved (or were not harmed) were therefore, not involved and by not involving themselves, they looked on while history was unfolding before them. Therefore, the generation of that particular time felt guilt and remorse collectively for having not extending themselves in a time of need. The people directly involved, on the other hand, would most definitely feel guilt because it is clearly established that what the Nazi’s did was unforgivable, and therefore no significant amount of time would erase their act. And since their act can never be erased effectively enough, the children of the following generations will reside under the shadow of the past, as Bernhard Schlink also makes clear in his novel “The Reader”.

The reason that Hans Frank feels as though an exceedingly large number of years could never diminish the resentment and guilt felt by those who were, in fact, not the direct perpetrators of the heinous crime committed an age ago, is because the 1^st generation to follow the war, are the children of either the perpetrators, the onlookers, or the harmed. The children of the perpetrators would feel guilt for ever having loved those, for ever having admire those that turned out to be involved in such a monstrous crime, and even though they were previously oblivious to it, they would still feel the guilt when it’s a matter of coming to terms with redefining their relationship with their loved ones and feeling a sense of disappointment and disgust at having been loved by the person who could carry out such terrible tasks. The children of the on-lookers were inclusive of those to feel the guilt in years to come due to the fact that they also must redefine their relationship with their loved ones. They must do so because, as time progressed and so did their education and awareness, they realized the true magnitude of destruction caused, and wish to understand why the acts didn’t come to end when they could have, hence they feel as though the guilt rests upon them because they are the ones involved with those who were involved, they must learn to live with the thoughts that those they respected, turned out to be coldhearted enough to ignore their surroundings when the situation worsened. The children of those harmed of course, just feel guilt for ever having been part of a country that so conveniently banished them, therefore, they feel guilt alongside disgust and grief.

Perhaps we can say that the quote was exaggerated, even though I agree with it, I wouldn’t entirely state that a thousand years would diminish the guilt felt by the oncoming generations, but the 4^th-5^th generation would be much less under the shadow of guilt, much less than the 1^st and 2^nd generation, where there are personal links and the shock of coming to terms with the situation is intense.

For Thursday 3rd December

Write 500 words expressing your response to the statement: "A thousand years will pass and the guilt of Germany will not be erased”

Vincent's response to the use of Prolepsis in Atonement.

“Briony was hardly to know it then, but this was the project’s highest point of fulfillment”

This is a short but significant prolepsis because it shows the reader Briony’s role in the novel. Firstly, the author suggests to the reader that the play that Briony made, which is seen as very childish would be the best thing Briony would achieve throughout the whole novel. This would make us think about why and how Briony wouldn’t be able to achieve anything else better than just a play, perhaps she will do something bad that would make the reader loose sympathy for her, or her character is simply boring and monotonous.

Furthermore, this quote also creates an emphasis on how important the play would be and how it would contribute a lot to the novel, because the play reflects on Briony’s character and on how she sees everything in black and white. Perhaps this would be bad later on in the story, for example when she sees Robbie and Cecilia by the fountain or when the blamed Robbie for the rape just because she saw him as a bad guy from a fairy tale.

Prolepsis (Extract 2)

“Six decades later [Briony] would describe how at the age of thirteen she had written her way through a whole history of literature, beginning with stories derived from the European traditional folk tales, through drama with simple moral intent, to arrive at an impartial psychological realism which she had discovered for herself, one special morning during a heat wave in 1935.”

Prolepsis is the rhetorical act of anticipation (in essence, here, the reader’s ‘premature’ knowledge of later events). In other words, the author gives account of future events that will definitely come true to the reader. The use of “six decades later” creates this effect.

Earlier on, McEwan introduces Briony to the reader. She is seen as an immature, innocent, ignorant and short-sighted girl. When McEwan uses prolepsis, he hints a transition in the character of Briony. “Six decades later”, he suggests that Briony has become very wise and mature, realising her faults in her late childhood. In some way, the distaste for Briony that the reader created for her is reduced, knowing that Briony will eventually realise her faults and strip away her childhood characteristics.

The use of “six decades later” also reveals the fact that Briony has survived the war. Within these six decades, McEwan informs the reader that Briony has experienced a long and enduring journey in reference to her passion for writing: “...had written her way through a whole history of literature”. This also reveals that Briony will mature rapidly in her writing, as well as her thoughts of the world around her through her written expression.

Furthermore, McEwan’s use of prolepsis lures the reader. The reader is intrigued to find out what will happen “six decades later”. The reader questions if Briony truly does become a mature person and wants to know how she survived the war and her experiences during that period.

Prolepsis in Atonement (extract 3 from page 90 --- on handout)

PROLEPSIS IN ATONEMENT (EXTRACT ANALYSIS)

“To what extent is prolepsis used on page 90 and to what effect?”

“In years to come he would often think back to this time, when he walked along the footpath that made a shortcut through a corner of the oak woods and joined the main drive where it curved towards the lake and the house.” – PAGE 90.

This is the scene before he gave the letter to Briony, and the letter giving should have been a small event, but it wasn’t depicted to be so due to the way the author has phrased the aforementioned sentence. The letter giving becomes very significant and the extract emphasizes the event and heightens its importance in order to impact how we feel about the oncoming outcome of the events, we begin to understand the true magnitude of devastation and havoc that will be caused because the author clearly states that the next few pages will contain an event that will be so major that it will be prevalent later on in the novel or in the life of the character, “In years to come”. Through prolepsis the author uses minor events and heightens its importance in order to monitor a particular character carefully, focus on the larger picture and perceive the next few pages differently in order to have a greater impact on the advent of important events in the novel. And this way, McEwan, with his specific phrasing, effectively allows the reader to not only focus on shock or the unfolding of events (as passive readers) but to focus on the moral issue and the idea conveyed and HOW the unfolding of events took place (as active readers) and hence, this has an engaging effect.