Skip to main content

Two Women and Their Frustrations

Illustration by Gemini AI


Nora and Millie are two unforgettable women in literature. Both are frustrated with their married life, though Nora’s frustration is a late experience. How they deal with their personal situations is worth a deep study. One redeems herself while the other destroys herself as well as her husband.

Nora is the protagonist of Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House, and Millie is her counterpart in Terence Rattigan’s play, The Browning Version. [The links take you to the respective text.] Personal frustration leads one to growth into an enlightened selfhood while it embitters the other. Nora’s story is emancipatory and Millie’s is destructive. Nora questions patriarchal oppression and liberates herself from it with equanimity, while Millie is trapped in a meaningless relationship.

Since I have summarised these plays in earlier posts, now I’m moving on to a discussion on the enlightening contrasts between these two characters. If you’re interested in the plot summaries of the plays, here are the links:

A Doll’s House

The Browning Version

Millie’s husband, Andrew Crocker-Harris, is an emotionally withdrawn man who is senior to her by many years. Moreover, he is rigid and passionless. His students call him Himmler. He is cold and unresponsive to Millie too. Millie, on the other hand, loves warmth and jollity. She loves to show off a little too. But her marriage has trapped her in a dry, conservative domestic life with no joy whatever. She develops an extramarital affair with Frank, a young colleague of her husband’s.

The problem is that there is no love in that adulterous relationship either. It’s just a means of escape from her barren marriage. Frank doesn’t love Millie really. He loves the sex they have together. This realisation only serves to add to her self-disgust. Her betrayal of her husband doesn’t bring her any reward, after all.  

Instead of facing her own frustrations, she projects them outward in rather cruel ways. She becomes cruel towards her own husband whom she belittles in front of others. By doing that, she is also exerting a kind of power on her husband. She should have exerted such a power on herself, on the causes of her frustrations. Instead of seeking ways of self-fulfilment, Millie finds joy in hurting her husband who, of course, has his personal flaws which are not insignificant. But loathing your partner (or anyone at all) is never a remedy for your personal frustrations.

Millie hates herself for her sense of failure, entrapment, and wasted potential. She is not loved even by the other man to whom she surrenders as best as she can. Love is a surrender to some extent. A surrender of one’s selfishness, mostly. And also other ego hassles. Millie is unable to rise above her ego. Hence her affair with Frank does not grow into genuine love-relationship. Instead, it is just a quest for personal validation. The affair is compensation, not connection. Even Frank is not able to establish an authentic relationship because his respect for Andrew makes him feel guilty of his betrayal. Guilt and self-validation: no way for trust and intimacy.

In the post-war England that Millie inhabited, divorce and marital breakdown, especially in middle-class professional circles, would have been frowned upon. Millie has no independent career or identity, either. Leaving Andrew would mean stepping into insecurity, which Millie is incapable of. And she knows that Frank is not going to accept her. So she clings to the security of what Bernard Shaw ridiculed as “middle class morality”, even if that means mutual misery for her and Andrew.

Moreover, Millie seems to need Andrew as the object of her scorn. He provides a target for her frustrations, a scapegoat for her disappointments. In other words, without Andrew, Millie would have to face her own emptiness directly – and that’s a far more terrifying prospect.

Ibsen’s Nora, on the other hand, shuts the door on her husband and walks out in order to reinvent herself after her shattering realisation of his utter hypocrisy. She had lived her whole life like a doll, playing into the hands of her husband who pretended to love her more than anyone else, anything else. On the surface, theirs was a happy marriage, even playful. Nora was Torvald’s “skylark,” “squirrel”, and what not. She sacrificed herself much too for her husband. She was happy to be his “doll”.

The realisation that Torvald’s love was a sort of pretension shatters Nora. When the hour of her personal crisis comes, Torvald fails her utterly. He values social status and the Shavian middle class morality with all its sham more than his wife. However, unlike Millie, Nora’s frustration is rooted not in self-loathing but in a delayed self-understanding. Her disillusionment opens her eyes clearly. She sees the reality of her relationship with Torvald, which is not worth prolonging anymore.

Nora doesn’t hate Torvald, however. Her anger is directed at the role she has been forced to play, not only by her husband but by the patriarchal society as a whole. Her rebellion is against a system, not against any person. That is why, unlike Millie, Nora doesn’t turn bitter and cruel. She turns her frustration into a courageous self-assertion. “I have to educate myself” is what she says in the end as she walks out of her husband’s life. She is maturing into an enlightened person.

Nora learns the essential lessons of life and saves herself. Millie fails to learn that and remains bitter and makes others bitter too. 

My Nora

PS. Written for the Bookish League blog hop hosted by Bohemian Bibliophile

PPS. On a personal note, I admired Nora so much that I named a kitten of mine after her.


 

Comments

  1. Thanks for this psycho-epiritual divination into patriarchy and its collateral feminine frustrations and redemptions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've always been fascinated with these two unforgettable women.

      Delete
    2. You need not go far across the oceans.. To Ibsen or Shaw. They are all here, in more shades and hues. Even in our Syrian Christian Families.. More soooo.

      Delete
    3. I know. But here in Bharat we can't speak openly.

      Delete
  2. Hari OM
    Keen analysis of the feminine yoke! YAM xx

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for sharing this 😊 Warm greetings from Montreal, Canada ❤️ 🇨🇦

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's about choice, isn't it? We choose how we react to situations, including situations where we aren't happy. Those characters made very different choices, and faced very different outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but choices are also conditioned by a lot of factors like upbringing, other people's responses, our attitudes and beiefs...

      Delete
  5. "Brilliant contrast! Nora slams the door, Millie fades away—two haunting escapes from gilded cages. Literature’s most devastating ‘what if’ question: Which path would you take?"

    ReplyDelete
  6. NamasteYatraTours (NYT India) – Found this post really informative and well-written. It’s rare to see such practical advice shared so clearly. Looking forward to reading more from your blog!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Were the women contemporaries ? If yes , Nora really was the braver one and I feel one's self worth and confidence is either something you perceive from your upbringing or something you teach yourself , that determines how you will react in certain situations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Its been very long since I read plays so great to get a glimpse of these two works. It is interesting how you analysed Millie and Nora's characters and compared them in context of their stories.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I went back to your posts to figure out Nora and Millie's motivations. It is an interesting contrast. What stands out is that the power to make what one wants of one's life lies in one's own hands. Nora chooses a path filled with uncertainties rather than living with a hypocritical husband - and that is admirable.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

A Man Called Ove

Book Review   Title: A Man Called Ove Author: Fredrik Backman Translation from Swedish: Henning Koch Publisher: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, London, 2015 Pages: 295   Ove is a grumpy old man. Right in the initial pages of the novel, we are informed that “People said he was bitter. Maybe they were right. He’d never reflected much on it. People also called him ‘anti-social’. Ove assumed this meant he wasn’t overly keen on people. And in this instance he could totally agree with them. More often than not people were out of their minds.” The novel is Ove’s story It is Ove’s grumpiness that makes him a fascinating character for the reader. Grumpiness notwithstanding, Ove has a lot of goodness within. His world is governed by rules, order and routines. He is superhumanly hardworking and honest. He won’t speak about other people even if such silence means the loss of his job and even personal honour. When his colleague Tom steals money and puts the blame squarely...

Don Bosco

Don Bosco (16 Aug 1815 - 31 Jan 1888) In Catholic parlance, which flows through my veins in spite of myself, today is the Feast of Don Bosco. My life was both made and unmade by Don Bosco institutions. Any great person can make or break people because of his followers. Religious institutions are the best examples. I’m presenting below an extract from my forthcoming book titled Autumn Shadows to celebrate the Feast of Don Bosco in my own way which is obviously very different from how it is celebrated in his institutions today. Do I feel nostalgic about the Feast? Not at all. I feel relieved. That’s why this celebration. The extract follows. Don Bosco, as Saint John Bosco was popularly known, had a remarkably good system for the education of youth.   He called it ‘preventive system’.   The educators should be ever vigilant so that wrong actions are prevented before they can be committed.   Reason, religion and loving kindness are the three pillars of that syste...

Writers and Morality

  Dostoevsky Dostoevsky was a compulsive gambler. He also consumed alcohol rather liberally. But he remains one of my favourite novelists of all time. Very few writers have produced novels that surpass the greatness of The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment . This raises a fundamental question: Should we keep a writer’s personal life totally aside while assessing the literary merit of their works? Going a little further with Dostoevsky, his personal vices gave him firsthand experience of despair, guilt, and redemption, which shaped the deep psychological and moral explorations in his novels. Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov were all parts of Dostoevksy’s complex personality. In other words, if Dostoevsky was an ideal human being, he wasn’t likely to have produced such great novels. It may also be recalled that most of his greatest works were written under extreme pressure from creditors who kept knocking at his door. If he were not the compulsive gambler that he was, t...

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...