How are the relationship between Torvald and Nora similar to that of Pozzo and Lucky? Two virtually different dramas, that seem to hold no connexion, nevertheless a Doll ‘s House and Waiting for Godot are in fact, really similar deductions as the relationship between Torvald and Nora and Pozzo and Lucky are really likewise. Though the rough hubby, Torvald, and Pozzo, the maestro of Lucky, may look to hold no similarities what so of all time, nevertheless the manner they treat their single spouse is similar as the are both autocratic figures.A
Torvald of A Doll ‘s House treats his married woman, Nora, they manner he believes a woman/wife should be treated. He leaves her on her ain to take attention of the kids, and sees her as merely a romantic toy that can easy be influence and manipulate into delighting his personal and selfich desires. Pozzo of Waiting for Godot is about identically the same ; Lucky is his slave, and he treats him bad consciously.A To Torvald, Nora is basically ‘just ‘ a ‘silly girl, ‘ she is younger than him physically and emotionally and he takes advantage of this.A He believes that her lone occupation in their family is to take attention of the kids and do the basic shopping, although he scolds her for disbursement excessively much money on the kids ‘s Christmas gifts.
Lucky, on the other manus, is lucky to have even a swoon sum of attending from Pozzo.A He is treated like an abused Canis familiaris, ill-fed, and mistreated.A Pozzo throws him the castanetss from his ain nutrient as a manner of feeding him ; he does non care about the fact that it is unhealthy for him, he puts his ain demands above Lucky ‘s and lone thinks of himself foremost. first.A Both Lucky and Nora are mistreated characters in the single plays/novels. Nora by her hubby, and Lucky by Pozzo, they are both used chiefly for their entertaining and practical facet.A Though Nora of A Doll ‘s House is subdued and mistreated by her demanding hubby, Lucky suffers from being abused and neglected by Pozzo, therefore doing him the more doomed than Nora.
In Ibsen ‘s “ A Doll ‘s House ” , there are assorted hints that hint to us what the sort of matrimony Nora and Torvald have. It is clear that Nora is a doll who is controlled by Torvald like a pupper. Nora is wholly dependent on Torvald.A His ideas and actions are her ideas and actions, she has n’t got a head of her own.A Nora is a marionette that is entirely dependent on it ‘s puppet maestro for counsel and over all of it ‘s motions, actions and determinations. Torvald ‘s physical control over Nora is really clearly shown when he teaches her how to dance the tarantella. Nora acts as though she needs Torvald to re-teach her all the moves so that she could relearn the dance. The reader can state that this is all a show she puts on, but it continues to demo her complete submissiveness to Torvald. After he teaches the dance to her, he proclaims: “ When you were dancing the tarantella, A chasing, inviting — my blood was on fire ; I could n’t stand it any longer-that ‘s why I brought you down so early.
Nora.A Leave me now, Torvald.A Please! A I do n’t desire all this.
Torvald.A What do you intend? A You ‘re merely playing your small mocking bird game with me ; are n’t you, Nora? A Do n’t desire to? A I ‘m your hubby, are n’t I? A ( Isben 447 ) This shows that Torvald is more interested in Nora physically than he is emotionally.A He believes that it is Nora ‘s chief dutie as his married woman to physically delight him at his bid with no inquiries what so of all time. This clearly expresses the controlling and oppressive nature of Torvald in his relationship.
Lucky is frequently whipped. He is basically a Equus caballus drawing Pozzo ‘s passenger car in their relationship that comes across as being pitiless and disdainful and yet Lucky is strangelysubmissive. Pozzo explains luckys behaviors, by stating, ” Why he does n’t do himself comfy? Let ‘s attempt and acquire this clear. Has he non the right to? Surely he has. It follows that he does n’t desire to. He imagines that when I see how good he carries I ‘ll be tempted to maintain him on in that capacity. As though I were short of slaves. ” [ p21 ] Despite his suffering status, Lucky does non look to desire things to alter. Possibly he is pleased with his status and possibly he is non every bit down as we are led to believe. From this we can see that Pozzo does so seem to hold an huge sum of control over Lucky even when at clip he himself does non look to gain this. This illustrates the mass sum of power which that he has over their relationship.
Henrik Ibsen ‘s drama, A Doll ‘s House, is filled with symbols that express nonrepresentational thoughts. These symbols are used toeffectively show the legion sums of inner struggles that are taking topographic point between the characters. A few of the symbols are New twelvemonth ‘s twenty-four hours, the Christmas tree the rubric of the book which is a immense contrast of their relationship and the monikers Torvald calls Nora. These highlight the subject and thought of comparing a perfect matrimony to the world of relationships, matrimonies and committedness, that can be described as a sham and unreal relationship, therefore mentioning to ; “ Doll ‘s House ” . The Christmas tree, something joyful that is meant to function simply as cosmetic object, is a great manner of typifying Nora ‘s place in her place as simply a toy, an object who is basically merely delighting to look at. This besides shows how in her relationship with Torvald, Nora has really small importance to the chief determinations that take topographic point. Whereas in Samuel Beckett ‘s, Waiting for Godot, the rope tied to Lucky is a symbolic of how Pozzo invariably has control over him and how he is in a sense literally tied down in his relationship. This goes on to farther to form the thought that pozzo is most decidedly, without a uncertainty the dominant figure in their relationship.
Towards the terminal of both dramas we find the dominant spouses altering and the state of affairs of the laden being changed. Pozzo in this new state of affairs becomes blint, it becomes less clear as to which character is taking the other, or if they are both genuinely in control. The phase waies read, Pozzo is blind… Rope as earlier, but much shorter, so that Pozzo may follow more easy. [ p49.5 ] For the first clip in the text, Pozzo is depending on Lucky for way ; Lucky depends on Pozzo for the same ground, although his relationship is based more on emotional facet, instead than physical. The shortness of the rope is necessary as it shows Pozzo ‘s sightlessness, and the consequence it has on their relationship ; their new relationship is really near as the rope is shorter, doing it harder for Pozzo to take and for Lucky to be dependent and wholly hapless. It is chiefly the same near the terminal of A Doll ‘s House. Nora comes to the realization that she has merely been a plaything in her ain place and that her relationship with Torvald has ever been a complete facade, she realises that she has been populating a prevarication. The tabular arraies are turned and for the first clip she is no longer the marionette but has now taken on the function as the marionette maestro, she leaves Torvald shocked and she leaves him depending on her and for one time we can see that she is naming the shootings, she is now the Torvald in the relationship.
In decision I believe that both relationships that are shown in both dramas can easy be translated to existent life scenarios. There is ever a more dominant in a relationship ; the fact is that there has got to be weak and strong individual in existent life. Looking closer at the relationships in both dramas I believe that Lucky is more unfortunate than Nora as he is wholly ignored, he is treated like an animate being and shown no understanding by his spouse, whereas, Nora gets some kind of grasp. Both plays terminal in a dramatic spiral that is wholly unexpected, the tabular arraies are turned for all the characters. The weak go the strong and the strong go the weak. We see as two dominant characters fall in their relationship go forthing them disarrayed and lost, and we watch, in uncertainty as the unexpected happens.
A Doll ‘s House
Translator: Nicholas Rudall
Publisher: Ivan R. Dee
Date of publication: 1999
Topographic point of publication: Chicago