Tomichan Matheikal's blog

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 ...

One of the many paradoxes of human life is that many people who are overtly religious may have the vilest evils lurking beneath their overt behaviour. Such evils may never become manifest in external behaviour since they remain successfully suppressed by the religiosity of the person.   The same is true of morality.   Conversely, many people who are not overtly religious or moralistic may be much better at heart than those who display virtues in their external behaviour. Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House , depicts this paradox. Ibsen died in 1906.   The play was originally published in 1879.   It is classical enough to grip our imagination and exercise our minds even today. Helmer, the protagonist, is a morally upright person, a man of honour.   No one will accuse him of any fault.   Yet when his wife, Nora, leaves him in the end returning the wedding ring, he sinks into the chair crying “Empty!.”   It is his inner emptiness that he has to confront ...