Oh, so difficult to grasp!

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-12-2009, 11:59 PM
Gladys

The Paternity of Oswald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Perhaps Manders is correct picking up on a certain expression that did indeed belong to his father's face. I don't believe it questions Oswald's paternity. I think it would be stretch to see Manders as his father. That just does not seem to fit into the structure of this play. For one, then how would Oswald have inherited the venereal disease from Captain Alving?

Half way through Act II, I am finding an ocean of evidence to cast doubt on Oswald's paternity. Did Oswald inherit the (venereal) disease from Captain Alving? Conceivably, he did not! Manders is a hypocrite. He had sex with Mrs Alving when she fled to him, within a year of her marriage, but recoiled from the risk to his reputation in 'Victorian' Norway.

Pastor Manders now makes more sense, Janine. As a Lutheran myself, it had long frustrated me that Manders role in the play seemed so large but so trivial. Trivial no longer. No wonder the play scandalised Norway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Secondly, then why did he [Manders] turn Mrs. Alving away and distance himself from her for all those years?

Pastor Manders, like Hedda Gabler, is terrified of scandal.

(2) By 'scarifying clarity', I mean that Ibsen fearlessly wields a scythe through the hypocrisies of society in Norway; and not without cost to himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

She feels this sum of money is tainted with the price she had to pay to stay on with the husband. She does not wish to pass this legacy onto her only son.

(4) But, inadvertently and tragically, she passes on everything. I read on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Isn't that when the fire breaks out, right after she tells them this stark truth?

(6) No, before.

(7) In writing, "I suspect 'the sun' alludes to searing truth long hidden by 'incessant rain' rather than death, but what truth?" I don't know what truth, myself, but hope we will find out.
02-13-2009, 04:56 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys

Half way through Act II, I am finding an ocean of evidence to cast doubt on Oswald's paternity. Did Oswald inherit the (venereal) disease from Captain Alving? Conceivably, he did not! Manders is a hypocrite. He had sex with Mrs Alving when she fled to him, within a year of her marriage, but recoiled from the risk to his reputation in 'Victorian' Norway.

Gladys, You would have to show me direct evidence to support this idea of that the two actually had sexual relations and proof of the possibility of paternity of Manders: direct quotes or inferences, whatever. Here is where we will disagree most likely. I don’t believe that Manders is the biological father; although, I can see how you might consider that. I am reading the play very carefully also, plus I watched it performed twice by the BBC on my DVD (a very true to the play production) and come up with the exact opposite interpretation of Manders. He is central to the theme of the story; a very important key character, indeed. This is because he represents the establishment, the pillars of society, the strict attitudes of Ibsen’s era, the conventional thinkers, the ‘holier than thou’ people to the point of being biased. If the theory you present, that Manders is actually Oswald’s son, were true, there would be no issue of incest indicated for the two young people; there would be no venereal disease inherited from the father; there would be no unhappy Mrs. Alving, being promptly send home to owe up to her ‘duty’ as a wife. All of these, very important themes and issues, would be non-existent in this play. It would be just another hackneyed soap-opera story of a woman straying to another man and having a son concealed from the public eye, whose actual paternity is a man outside of her marriage; sounds a little like the miniseries “The Thornbirds“. Mrs. Alving might have desired close contact and a passionate, sexual union with Manders at that time; but Manders was too ‘straight and narrow’ in his thinking and convictions to allow this to happen; he was a young divinity student set on his goals of saving souls, not stray wives. No, I do believe he send her abruptly away the night she came to him in desperation and back to her husband, advising her to live up to her duty; the thought of his own sinning was beyond his comprehension. As Mrs. Alving was chained to her duty as a wife, Manders was chained to his duty as a clergyman. I don’t see anything indicated in the text referring to that time in their lives that Manders did not act according to his own convictions. Manders represents duty and disipline and restraint; all the conventions of that society demands of individuals; he represents society’s opinion, and therefore, he is necessary to offset the other characters in this play. You could say this it where the opposition is symbolized - through the character of Manders. Much as in the play by Ibsen, “Enemy of the People”, the town and it's characters are the counterpoint to the 'enemy of the people'. Manders represents the people . If we did not have a Manders in the play, who would represent this idea of conventionality and the mass opinion? He may very well be a hypocrite, but he is faithful to his ideals and has never strayed from convention. I also researched this online and came up with these commentaries. Not one mention the idea of Manders being the actual father of Oswald. Interesting theory, but it just does not work in the structure of this play. There are many ghost in this play, but that is not one of them. The ghost are more subtle than that. You could say this admission, that Mrs. Alving did once go to Manders for support and love is one 'ghost' for them both; however, they never followed through with it, because Manders rejected the unconventional and unholy idea from the start. Yes, they remained friends, but it you noticed he did not come to the house much after that event. He was now uncomfortable with Mrs. Alving. I can well see why given his position. He mentions to Oswald that young people who can't afford to marry should stay clear of each other. I forget the exact lines but I can look them up and quote them. It is during the exchange when Manders is appalled with the mere notion of couples with children living together out of formal wedlock. This reflects clearly Mander's own repressed attitude towards relations between men and women.

This might paraphrase the connection of the three plays and the three woman characters, a little more accurately than I can. I found this online:

Quote:

Henrik Ibsen, playwright; his works challenged the operation of his contemporary European society and revolutionised drama.

Ibsen's plays contained ideas ahead of their time. In A Doll's House, women's emancipation was championed; in Ghosts, peoples' inability to escape their past was explored and in Hedda Gabler the pressures of society on bourgeoisie women of the time are examined.

His plays were realistic, but made use of symbolism to convey their themes.

Here is the additional commentary.This is from Sparks Notes online. Note the line:
“In the Pastor, we see the connection between public opinion and duty”.

Quote:

Ghosts
Henrik Ibsen

Analysis
The main theme of Ghosts is the extent to which society invades personal lives. Mrs. Alving, obsessed with keeping up appearances, tries to protect her late husband's reputation. But because of this concern, she not only ends up living a lie and building a memorial to her husband's false reputation, but she also ruins the lives of her husband's two children, Oswald and Regina.

Pastor Manders is also ruled by a neurotic concern for public opinion. It leads him to much foolishness, to the extent that he is eventually tricked into funding Engstrand sailor's saloon. In the Pastor, we see the connection between public opinion and duty. When the Pastor tells Mrs. Alving that she must save Oswald from sin, it is unclear whether he is motivated by a pure sense of moral duty or by a deference to public opinion, because for him they are essentially the same. It is because of the Pastor's principles that he does not give in to the mutual attraction that he and Mrs. Alving share and that would have made them both happy.
Mrs. Alving's speech on "ghosts," in the second act, establishes the play's key metaphor. The "ghosts" of duty and public opinion come to dominate and ruin generations of lives. Mrs. Alving feels that all people are haunted not only by their inheritances from specific people, but by general superstitions that exist within a community. The idea of filial piety, or duty to family members above all else, is such a ghost.

Then I found this online; I will post more of this essay later on; it is very well written, and researched, even though a HS student wrote it:

Quote:

The Significance of the Title in Ibsen's Ghosts
By Selchie, High School Student

The title of Ibsen's Ghosts is a signpost for the meaning of the text.
An essay hosted at LiteratureClassics.com

The “ghosts” of society’s beliefs and values, and their affect on the individual, is central to the text. Mrs Alving is aware that she is trapped by social opinion. She knows that society believes that “it’s not a wife’s place to judge her husband”, and that she holds very little power. She reads “terrible, subversive, free-thinking” books, which help her to “explain…a lot of the things [she has] been thinking.” Pastor Manders is used to represent the hypocrisy and conservativeness of society. He tells Mrs Alving that “craving for happiness…is a sign of an unruly spirit,” and that she has “no right to offend public opinion”. When Pastor Manders is challenged over his “personal opinions” of the “free-thinking books”, he replies that there are times in life “when one must rely upon the opinions of others.”

Quote:

Pastor Manders now makes more sense, Janine. As a Lutheran myself, it had long frustrated me that Manders role in the play seemed so large but so trivial. Trivial no longer. No wonder the play scandalised Norway.

I found other commentary and will post some parts later. I will keep researching this, but so far only one article vaguely suggests the possibility to support this theory. Mander’s role, as I pointed out above, it far from trivial. Given all the elements and the opposition of all of the characters, aside from Manders, who would represent convention and church, yes, it is totally understandable how this play would indeed scandalize Ibsen at the time. I can site direct quotes from the play showing the severe and strict attitudes of Manders.

Quote:

Pastor Manders, like Hedda Gabler, is terrified of scandal.

This is probably true, and he shows this throughout the play, however he is did not act on Mrs. Alving’s wishes to make love to her. He restained himself as he advised her to being married and dutiful to her husband. Duty plays a huge role in Ibsen’s plays. In “The Master Builder” the word is repeated almost to excess. Solness’s wife is ever the dutiful woman to her husband and the household; her duty cost her her two twin boys. In “A Doll’s House” Nora knows her place and her duty to her husband and children. In Greta Gabler, Greta knows her duty to her husband and cannot accept it in the end; nor can she allow scandal to enter her house. Some seek a way out., others just harden and accept their fate. Mrs. Alving sought Manders early in her marriage when first realizing her mistake, but to no avail; Mrs. Solness is trapped, but set in her ways of duty; she seeks no way out but she gets some relief in the company of the doctor.

Quote:

(2) By 'scarifying clarity', I mean that Ibsen fearlessly wields a scythe through the hypocrisies of society in Norway; and not without cost to himself.

Most definitly, he does this and he pays dearly for this play and for others. This was not the only controversial play. Surely “The Master Builder” caused a great many eyebrows to be raised.[/quote]

Gladys, never heard that word before so I just looked up in my large college dictionary and it says: “to wound by severe criticism.” Is that what you meant? He does indeed wound himself or his reputation at the time. Many people would not even perform his plays for fear of scandal.

Quote:

(4) But, inadvertently and tragically, she passes on everything. I read on.

Yes, even though her main goal in life has been to shield Oswald from his father’s reputation/scandal and all that goes with it, she does pass on all to Oswald in the end. No one wins in the end; all her efforts are invane. That is what makes it so tragic.

Quote:

(6) No, before.

Thanks, I forgot which came first. I recall that the fire broke out very suddenly and they went running out of the house. It was an abrupt change in mood of the play or scene. I will have to review that section.

Quote:

(7) In writing, "I suspect 'the sun' alludes to searing truth long hidden by 'incessant rain' rather than death, but what truth?" I don't know what truth, myself, but hope we will find out.

Yes, let’s research this further and find out together. It certainly presents an interesting contrast of light and dark.

Here are some ideas I have, off the top of my head, about this contrast of rain and sun. I feel the sun represents the modernism that Ibsen is trying to present to the audience. I feel the rain is the opposite; the restraints that society inflicts on people. In the beginning, Oswald comes into the room wearing a light jacket. One article I present, talks about that and how he symbolizes the opposite of the dank, dark rainy North of Norway. He has been living in Paris and he has experienced the light. Light represents modernism/a new order of living and thinking freely; therefore the light jacket which now sets Oswald appart as having progressed to the being modern world. Light can symbolize enlightenment. Light is associated with sun and with fire. The burning of the orphanage might also symbolize fire and en‘light’enment in the midst of darkness and despair. I think that light also can represent ‘truth’. At the end, Oswald asks his mother for all - enlightenment and truth - the sun. I think there can many more subtle meaning for the two words and the contrast. It is interesting to explore those. There is a lot of hidden symbolism in the play; actually in all of Ibsen's work.

Here is another article I found online, that may interest you, since it does present the possibility that Manders could be the father; but quite honestly, I don’t agree with this possibliliy. However; this article is quite good and insightful. This is just a excerpt from it; it would be worth your while to read the entire article, which is a bit long to post here, by

Lidalicious.com
by lida mankovski
Ghosts

Quote:

Pastor Manders insists by saying, "Yes, but there's a look about the corner of his mouth - something about the lips - that definitely reminds me of Alving. Especially now he is smoking" (Ibsen, 40). Ironically, to Pastor Manders, Osvald resembles his father most when he is indulging in an act that is harmful to his health. This notion is deeply interwoven with the question Osvald has regarding his venereal decease, and the question surrounding its contraction. Moreover, Mrs. Alving disagrees once again by suggesting that he has much more of a clergyman's mouth. This raises a number of questions in relation to the possibility of Pastor Manders being the real father of Osvald (Ibsen, 40). Is Pastor Manders persistent on the idea that Osvald resembles Alving due to the fact that he is attempting to deflate any speculation suggesting otherwise? Despite the numerous directions that this comment could be taken, what is made clear is that these two characters have shared a history together that extends further then mere platonic friendship.

See entire article here
http://www.lidalicious.com/essays/li...re/ghosts.html

I do think the two had feeling for each other beyond a platonic friendship. I still stick to my own opinion that Mrs. Alving acted on her impulses and that Manders did not. I think Manders might be protecting himself here, but I think that is in his nature to do so, to the extend of being overly cautious about his untainted reputation, and he might not want Oswald to suspect this possibility. In my opinion, he did nothing out of line, that would indicate that he could be Oswald's father. Of course, if you want to believe this, it is up to you. I personally, think believing this, is going too far and defeats the main idea of the play; it would detract from the main theme of the strict establishment ideals pitted against the new liberal ideas. In each of Ibsen's plays, there must be one character who represents societal restraints and conventional thinking; therefore, I feel that Manders is representative of this, in this particular play. Taint him and he would not hold up as the quote "respectable" character and counterpoint to the others characters in the play.

Just found this online:

Quote:

Ghosts (1881) touched the forbidden subject of hereditary venereal disease and attacked social conventions as destroyers of life and happiness. The London Daily Telegraph called the play "an open drain; a loathsome sore unbandaged; a dirty act done publicly; a lazar house wit all its doors and windows open."

I also found more references and meanings to to light, fire, darkness, rain. I will post that later on.
02-13-2009, 09:46 PM
Gladys

On waking this morning, Janine, the permutations (the subtle ghosts) of Oswald's doubtful paternity set off wonderful fireworks in my brain. And I'm still in Act II.

Movies so often incise the subtlety, the fireworks, from literature.

The evidence for Oswald's paternity is, of necessity, indirect, and early Act II has much of it. (I'll post this evidence in a new thread: The doubtful paternity of Oswald). Ibsen shows, not tells. The large slab I quoted from Act I is interesting in that an almost embittered Mrs Alving says, "rather a clerical curve about his mouth" to her former close friend and pastor, who hasn't set foot in her house for all of thirty years. Alluding to his vocation is this context (Oswald and 30 years) is a little odd. Her choice of words is double-edged, and he reacts as a guilty man might.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

If the theory you present, that Manders is actually Oswald’s son, were true, there would be no issue of incest indicated for the two young people; there would be no venereal disease inherited from the father; there would be no unhappy Mrs. Alving, being promptly send home to owe up to her ‘duty’ as a wife.

(1) If Oswald's paternity is doubtful, fascinating questions arise. Did Mrs Alving, who married a dissolute for money, sleep with her husband before fleeing to Manders? Was Oswald born nine months later? Did Chamberlain Alving die of Syphilis? Did Oswald contract Syphilis at conception or in utero? The latter seems more likely although Manders was close friends with some of those licentious 'Pillars of Society', who so shocked Oswald as they toured the art houses of Paris. Is Mrs Alving's life a lie from beginning to end...and what about Pastor Manders, the man of integrity? Has Regine, in ignorance, left Oswald to die alone? If unrelated, have Oswald and Regine been cheated of happiness? What truth do Oswald's words, 'The sun.--The sun' expose to the dazzling light of day?

Such questions show the greatness of Ibsen.

In the first year of marriage, a distraught Mrs Alving flees to her close friend Manders, leaving her husband forever. He is deeply shocked, but comforts her. Carried away in a state of the highest emotion, they have sex (adultery was common even then), which offers fleeting comfort (they 'followed through with' this 'unconventional and unholy idea'). Understandably, Pastor Manders is not slow to realise the potential for scandal and returns her to her husband within a day. Plausible and inevitable, for a man like Manders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

As Mrs. Alving was chained to her duty as a wife, Manders was chained to his duty as a clergyman. ... Manders represents duty and disipline and restraint; all the conventions of that society demands of individuals

This is precisely the target that Ibsen attacks, here and in other plays (most overtly in 'An Enemy of the People'). Yes, 'Manders represents the people'.

(2) I believe 'Ghosts' was his most controversial play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

... about this contrast of rain and sun

(7) As I write, the ending of 'Ghosts' is beginning to make sense! In Act I, Pastor Manders, the priest and prophet, speaks for Ibsen in prophesying the final outcome:

OSWALD. That doctrine will scarcely go down with warm-blooded young people who love each other.

MRS. ALVING. No, scarcely!

MANDERS. [Continuing.] How can the authorities tolerate such things! Allow them to go on in the light of day!

**** Pastor Manders, inadvertently prophesies that the authorities - the pillars of society, including Manders and Helene - cannot tolerate Oswald and Regine, two 'warm-blooded young people who love'. Least of all in the full 'light of day'. There is no room for Oswald 'under the sun'. ****

She goes to the table and puts out the lamp. Sunrise. The glacier and the snow-peaks in the background glow in the morning light.]

OSWALD. [Sits in the arm-chair with his back towards the landscape, without moving. Suddenly he says:] Mother, give me the sun.

MRS. ALVING. [By the table, starts and looks at him.] What do you say?

OSWALD. [Repeats, in a dull, toneless voice.] The sun. The sun.

If 'Oswald sees both [his] parents with scarifying clarity', we and the playwright see his mother and candidate fathers naked in sham. Sacrifying satire indeed.

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 3:16___And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.

Just 'another hackneyed soap-opera story... like the miniseries “The Thornbirds“'? Not in my opinion. The ending has more in common with 'Romeo and Juliet'.
02-13-2009, 11:44 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys

On waking this morning, Janine, the permutations (the subtle ghosts) of Oswald's doubtful paternity set off wonderful fireworks in my brain. And I'm still in Act II.

:lol:I woke up after watching "The Master Builder" and reading some more of "Ghosts" with my poor brain aching with thoughts of Ibsen. I think those "Ghosts" were haunting me all night. Seriously, I slept restlessly last night. I better not read this stuff before I go to sleep.

Quote:

Movies so often incise the subtlety, the fireworks, from literature.

That can be true, but this boxed set of Ibsen by the BBC, has proved very true to the original plays so far. I am reading along now and I don't see one detail cut from the original text. The productions are somewhat stagey, not at all movie-like. Of times I find viewing a play much better since these were meant to be performed and not read by the general public to begin with. I don't find viewing this one has at all lost it's fireworks. The version I saw was quite dynamic with a great nuanced cast. The only difference I have seen, so far, is I don't think Oswald is wearing a light colored jacket in scene I, when he is first introduced, but I could be wrong. From on commentary I read the light jacket was significant also - it sets Oswald appart from the others on first encountering him.

Quote:

The evidence for Oswald's paternity is, of necessity, indirect, and early Act II has much of it. (I'll post this evidence in a new thread: The doubtful paternity of Oswald).

Ok, I will check it out and your reasons for believing this; but I still don't buy it as being the case. I just re-read the whole account of the evening when Mrs. A fled to Manners and his replies to her convince me even more that he remained upstanding and kept to his beliefs.

Quote:

Ibsen shows, not tells. The large slab I quoted from Act I is interesting in that an almost embittered Mrs Alving says, "rather a clerical curve about his mouth" to her former close friend and pastor, who hasn't set foot in her house for all of thirty years. Alluding to his vocation is this context (Oswald and 30 years) is a little odd. Her choice of words is double-edged, and he reacts as a guilty man might.

I am sketchy still about how old Oswald is. I thought I read he was 26 or 28 in my translation and now I can't find the exact text. I noted it at the time, since in the BBC play, I thought they said he was 23 or 24. Now if Manders hasn't seen Mrs. A for 30yrs, then how could Oswald be his son?

Quote:

(1) If Oswald's paternity is doubtful, fascinating questions arise. Did Mrs Alving, who married a dissolute for money, sleep with her husband before fleeing to Manders? Was Oswald born nine months later? Did Chamberlain Alving die of Syphilis? Did Oswald contract Syphilis at conception or in utero?

Well, most of the commentary online and otherwise lean towards the hypothosis that Oswald's biological father is indeed Chamberlain Alving; also that Oswald contracted congentital syphilis. How do you mean, did she sleep with Alving before running off to Manders? She was his wife, so it's likely she did her wifely duty; therefore, would have slept with him. Whomever fathered him he was born 9 months later. Are you suggesting that Manders had the disease? I don't think that would make any sense. For one, and this is important to the idea of the play, the disease now ties Oswald to his father, Chamberlain Alving, even though his mother has tried to shield him from Alving for years, and now realises she has failed. Oswald has formed his own distorted view of his father and sees him in a different light than his mother does. Because of not being allowed to have first hand contact and information with/about his father, he has formed a sort of idolized image of him.

Quote:

The latter seems more likely although Manders was close friends with some of those licentious 'Pillars of Society', who so shocked Oswald as they toured the art houses of Paris.

You lost me here, Gladys, which is 'the later that is more likely?' Also, did it state that Manders was close friends with some of those licentious 'Pillars of Society' directly or are you assuming that?

Quote:

Is Mrs Alving's life a lie from beginning to end...and what about Pastor Manders, the man of integrity? Has Regine, in ignorance, left Oswald to die alone? If unrelated, have Oswald and Regine been cheated of happiness? What truth do Oswald's words, 'The sun.--The sun' expose to the dazzling light of day?

Your brain is experiencing fireworks, alright. Maybe you have an overactive imagination, Gladys. You are really running with this theory. Yes, granted this new idea can bring out very interesting, but totally 'hypothetical' questions, in my opinion. Personally, I just don't see the true text evidence that proves or substantiates the idea that Manders could be the paternal father; I don't even see subtext or expressions to back it up. I just can't see it, nor believe in it. I can't see how all this would fit the idea of the story. I think this is like forming an alternate ending to a "Doll's House".

Quote:

Such questions show the greatness of Ibsen.

I know questions are definitely a big part of reading Ibsen but my own interpretation fits most of the commentary I have read, that sticks to the idea of Oswald being related to Alving; he is even said to look something like him. How do you explain that if he is Mander's son; mainly by the fact, of his mother (who is directing her comments away from comparing him to his father, Alving, for her own benefit - she wants him to only resemble herself) assigning a clerical mouth to his facial expressions and then Manders saying she was wrong, and he looks like just like Alving? I think that would be scanty evidence as to determine that Manders is his real father.

Quote:

In the first year of marriage, a distraught Mrs Alving flees to her close friend Manders, leaving her husband forever. He is deeply shocked, but comforts her. Carried away in a state of the highest emotion, they have sex (adultery was common even then), which offers fleeting comfort (they 'followed through with' this 'unconventional and unholy idea').

That may have been Mrs. Alvings intention but where in the text do you see evidence that Manders and her actually had a sexual affair. I know adultery was common back then; and so it is evident with the husband but Manders was a very religious man and prudish in this ideas of sexual relations outside of marriage. That is quite evident by everything he states. Gladys, you said this about them having sex more than once but I need to see the text that is leading you to assume this is true.

Quote:

Understandably, Pastor Manders is not slow to realise the potential for scandal and returns her to her husband within a day. Plausible and inevitable, for a man like Manders.

Within a day? I thought this all transpired in one short night. I will review tonight.

Quote:

This is precisely the target that Ibsen attacks, here and in other plays (most overtly in 'An Enemy of the People'). Yes, 'Manders represents the people'.

Well, we at least agree on one thing.

Quote:

(2) I believe 'Ghosts' was his most controversial play.

I think when it was written it certainly was, and still is shocking to modern audiences, because of the incest and veneral disease themes, and euthanasia is always highly sensitive topic and contraversal issue. It delves into a lot of painful and sensitive subject, ones that make a person uncomfortable to acknowledge or talk about. Mrs. Alving brings up the idea to Manders, that surely there are people in the world related, who don't know of it, and they do end up together.

Quote:

(7) As I write, the ending of 'Ghosts' is beginning to make sense! In Act I, Pastor Manders, the priest and prophet, speaks for Ibsen in prophesying the final outcome:

OSWALD. That doctrine will scarcely go down with warm-blooded young people who love each other.

MRS. ALVING. No, scarcely!

MANDERS. [Continuing.] How can the authorities tolerate such things! Allow them to go on in the light of day!

So in your opinion, this then proves that Manders had sex with Mrs. Alving? I think that is going too far and assuming much. He is protesting here against the open-minded views of Mrs.A and Oswald. Yes, he mentions the 'light of day' - but what of it? Does that really indicate anything special? If anything, I think Ibsen meant it to indicate enlightenment/truth - in the light of day...in this way it ironic that Manders voices this. He recalls that Mrs. A came to him under the shield of darkness, covertly. But here he is acknowledging that these 'modern' young people show themselves openingly in 'light of day and are not ashamed of their actions, which to him are appalling and unspeakable, sinful. Also, Oswald did state he would go to their houses for dinner or to visit in the daytime - Sunday. Interesting it is 'Sun'- day.

Quote:

**** Pastor Manders, inadvertently prophesies that the authorities -the pillars of society, including Manders and Helene - cannot tolerate Oswald and Regine, two 'warm-blooded young people who love'. Least of all in the full 'light of day'. There is no room for Oswald 'under the sun'. ****

Just further evidence that the two young people are bathed in the light of honesty and not hiding in shadows or among ghosts.

Quote:

She goes to the table and puts out the lamp. Sunrise. The glacier and the snow-peaks in the background glow in the morning light.]

OSWALD. [Sits in the arm-chair with his back towards the landscape, without moving. Suddenly he says:] Mother, give me the sun.

MRS. ALVING. [By the table, starts and looks at him.] What do you say?

OSWALD. [Repeats, in a dull, toneless voice.] The sun. The sun.

Is he truly unconscious at this point or just in a sort of stupor. This part actually confuses me a bit. Symbolically I realise the meaning of the word 'sun'. Perhaps it is not meant to be totally realistic at this point to put the focus on the issue of assisted suicide. It is a very dynamic ending indeed. Stark and heart-breaking.

Here is something I dug up on the idea of the light and dark, sun and rain:

[quote]There are many symbols present throughout Ibsen’s work. Rain is used as a symbol of the cleansing of evil and impurities. Outside of Mrs. Alving’s home it remains rainy and stormy until she faces the truth about her husband. The rain washes away the disguises so that the truth may be seen. Generally when this takes place the sun, another symbol, rises, revealing the reality of the situation. Mrs. Alving said, “And there we are, one and all, so pitifully afraid of the light” (271). All the characters are afraid to face reality, especially Mrs. Alving,...[quote]

Quote:

If 'Oswald sees both [his] parents with scarifying clarity', we and the playwright see his mother and candidate fathers naked in sham. Sacrifying satire indeed.

Is this in the play text: 'Oswald sees both [his] parents with scarifying clarity'? I don't know where this phrase originated. I am a little lost here. I am the one getting scarified!

Quote:

Just 'another hackneyed soap-opera story... like the miniseries “The Thornbirds“'? Not in my opinion. The ending has more in common with 'Romeo and Juliet'.

I don't agree at all. How so, like 'Romeo and Juliet'? It's a tragedy for all, but then it could be 'Hamlet'. No one wins in the end. I just meant that the idea or the story centering around Manders being the father is too old and used. I felt that the other alternate scenerio is more unique and shocking.
02-14-2009, 12:44 AM
Gladys

I've finished the play, Janine, and there are too many loose ends. Time to think.

Quote:

MANDERS. ... He is six or seven and twenty, and has never had the opportunity of learning what a well-ordered home really is.

Manders hasn't seen Helene for around 27 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

...the disease now ties Oswald to his father, Chamberlain Alving

With Chamberlain Alving dying early, the syphilis likely comes from him (in utero), whether father or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

You lost me here, Gladys, which is 'the latter that is more likely?' Also, did it state that Manders was close friends with some of those licentious 'Pillars of Society' directly or are you assuming that?

The latter being contraction of syphilis 'in utero'. I'm assuming that 'pillars of society' were among Manders' friends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

So in your opinion, this then proves that Manders had sex with Mrs. Alving?

(7) No. I've yet to provide the evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

"Outside of Mrs. Alving’s home it remains rainy and stormy until she faces the truth about her husband."

Your quote confuses me, in that the story Mrs Alving gives Oswald in act III is much kinder than her account given to Manders in Act I.

Having read, Act III, I am rethinking some of my comments on the ending, which contains several difficult passages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

No one wins in the end.

Doesn't Manders? An interesting passage is:

MRS. ALVING. Pastor Manders knows all about it.

REGINA. [Busied in putting on her shawl.] Well then, I'd better make haste and get away by this steamer. The Pastor is such a nice man to deal with; and I certainly think I've as much right to a little of that money as he has--that brute of a carpenter.

MRS. ALVING. You are heartily welcome to it, Regina.

REGINA. [Looks hard at her.] I think you might have brought me up as a gentleman's daughter, ma'am; it would have suited me better. [Tosses her head.] But pooh--what does it matter! [With a bitter side glance at the corked bottle.] I may come to drink champagne with gentlefolks yet.

MRS. ALVING. And if you ever need a home, Regina, come to me.

REGINA. No, thank you, ma'am. Pastor Manders will look after me, I know. And if the worst comes to the worst, I know of one house where I've every right to a place.
02-15-2009, 03:20 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys

I've finished the play, Janine, and there are too many loose ends. Time to think.

I am not as far as you in actually reading the play yet. I am sorry I am so slow. I have some critical family matters to attend to tomorrow; today I am nervous about those. I've been overly tired lately, too; I try to read some at night and fall asleep after only a few pages:(, but I did read some yesterday in the day so I did fairly well. I want to wait till I finish my reading before resuming too much commenting. Is that ok with you?

Quote:

Manders hasn't seen Helene for around 27 years.

Not sure that is accurate. In the text I read yesterday they again mention the time duration but specifically say they only have meet for business matters and he has never come to visit them in the whole of her husband's life time. It also spoke of the fact that he was intimate friends with both she and her husband. I did not take that as unsual or meaning anything sexual. One can be intimate in a friendship way and not be at all sexual. Later I will quote the passages. I now got the impression that they moved to the country and then Manders never pursued visiting them. The moved shortly after she was send back to live up to her wifely duty; so Manders refrained from contact and then never went to see them in their new house; however, after the death of the husband, in respect to financial matters, he had some outside contact with Helene assisting her in business matters. We don't really know how long the husband lived or how long ago he died. It seems also that Mrs. Alving is pointing to the fact, that Manders had previously seen her son because she wanted him to compare how he looks now to before; so this is not the first time he has seen the young man. It appears that he did know him as a boy.

Quote:

With Chamberlain Alving dying early, the syphilis likely comes from him (in utero), whether father or not.

I still believe he is the father and that 'the son inheriting the sins of the father' is one of the main themes in this play. I therefore think he contracted congentital syphilis. Most of the articles/commentary I have read point to this fact. Plus, I think there is clear evidence of that belief by both son and mother at the end of the play. No one can possible know for certain; back then they did not have paternity tests or good testing for syphilis to determine where it originated. It seemed that the two diagnoses Oswald got did contradict each other to some degree. I think the question was whether Oswald contracted it (in utero) or by his own sexual contacts as a young man. It seems they narrowed it down to being most likely (in utero) by the time span and how the disease develops to stage 3 when it is untreatable and irreversible. Therefore the final conclusion seems to be with dr. #1 - in utero, congentital.

Quote:

The latter being contraction of syphilis 'in utero'. I'm assuming that 'pillars of society' were among Manders' friends.

The text doesn't use that phrase specifically, and it does not say that Manders was actual friends with these sorts; but then again, he was apparently friends with Chamberlain Alving and he was one of that sort of men that Oswald describes, who was married and strayed in far off lands. I think of Mander's involvements more as acquaintances, since Manders seems to me more distant, than a true friend would be. He doesn't seem very warm and he is very judgemental, but maybe he was less so in his younger days. Still I think he was very rigid in his beliefs and stuck to those his entire life. He is just that type personality. He seems very rigid to me.

Quote:

(7) No. I've yet to provide the evidence.

Ok; maybe you will come across some text, but so far I haven't seen anything truly concrete.

Quote:

Your quote confuses me, in that the story Mrs Alving gives Oswald in act III is much kinder than her account given to Manders in Act I.

Don't you think she needs to soften it for the son? Afterall, she is talking about his father; she doesn't mean to shatter all of Oswald's estimate of his father so suddenly; that would be a terrible shock; the shock she give the young people is bad enough.

Quote:

Having read, Act III, I am rethinking some of my comments on the ending, which contains several difficult passages.

They do contain difficult passages. I haven't got to the actual reading of that yet but the play I saw seemed, so far, to follow the actually text/script closely; I have seen very little difference.

Quote:

Doesn't Manders? An interesting passage is:

MRS. ALVING. Pastor Manders knows all about it.

REGINA. [Busied in putting on her shawl.] Well then, I'd better make haste and get away by this steamer. The Pastor is such a nice man to deal with; and I certainly think I've as much right to a little of that money as he has--that brute of a carpenter.

MRS. ALVING. You are heartily welcome to it, Regina.

REGINA. [Looks hard at her.] I think you might have brought me up as a gentleman's daughter, ma'am; it would have suited me better. [Tosses her head.] But pooh--what does it matter! [With a bitter side glance at the corked bottle.] I may come to drink champagne with gentlefolks yet.

MRS. ALVING. And if you ever need a home, Regina, come to me.

REGINA. No, thank you, ma'am. Pastor Manders will look after me, I know. And if the worst comes to the worst, I know of one house where I've every right to a place.

If he does represent the establishment, the church and the general attitude of strict society, then perhaps he does win. I was, more or less, thinking of the other characters, asside from Manders; all the others are related by blood, except Regina's step-father and Manders. Also, before I pointed out there was one character not actually physically present but still very much part of the play, Alving. I failed to mention that also Johanna is another presence mentioned often and important to the play. Now add these to the other three and we have four related in someway by blood.

Now that I think of it, I would agree that Manders does win, since he is the opposition. I don't think Regina will end up living with Manders though; I don't think she cares now what happens to her and she will go live with her step-father, although she finds him appalling. She acted as if she desired to live with Manders as his ward or maid, in the beginning of the play, but he turned her right off to the notion. He would not even stay in the household overnight let alone let a young woman who has recently 'developed' live in his household. No, Manders wants to be alone and above any scandal or suspicion. In some ways, he is 'dirtier minded', than the rest of the characters; since he is always imagining of what could befall him or others to taint one. I think Manders fights himself, as a man, more than we realise. He denies his own natural feelings about people, especially women. He acts very sterile and removed and yet he probably fights off his own sexual desires as a man, more than we know.

I probably won't post anymore until I finish reading the play. It is complicated.
02-15-2009, 09:25 PM
Gladys

I've read quickly, Janine, encouraged by your critical input to tackle once again this formidable play. Home life is central to Ibsen and I hope things turn out well for you. Please sleep well. And by all means, read the rest of play before further comment.

As you may have guessed, I have been silenced for two days by the complexities of Act III. No wonder I was so dispirited on re-reading the play in August! While, I am still reluctant to broach the ending, a dozen realisations and some fireworks in the past 24 hours are signs of hope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

they only have meet for business matters

Mrs. Alving. Yes, and you [Manders] never once came out here to see us in my husband's lifetime. It was only the business in connection with the Orphanage that obliged you to come and see me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

It also spoke of the fact that he was intimate friends with both she and her husband. I did not take that as unusual or meaning anything sexual.

I am arguing for only one brief intimacy, 28 years ago, on that night Mrs Alving fled home: a fleeting celebration of joie de jivre. For the long-promised evidence on Oswald's paternity, see my post titled Quotations touching on paternity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

We don't really know how long the husband lived or how long ago he died.

We do. See my post titled Chronology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I still believe he is the father and that 'the son inheriting the sins of the father' is one of the main themes in this play.

Except that the quote is 'the sins of the fathers'. For Ibsen, Oswald's syphilis is a consequence of the sin of more than one 'pillar of society', although the infection is likely congenital from the Captain. Even that is not certain:

Quote:

The late stages of syphilis can develop in about 15% of people who have not been treated for syphilis, and can appear 10 – 20 years after infection was first acquired. certain (www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/STDFact-Syphilis.htm)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Don't you think she needs to soften it for the son? After all, she is talking about his father

You're right. Oswald associates his father with joie de jivre throughout the play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I don't think Regina will end up living with Manders though; I don't think she cares now what happens to her and she will go live with her step-father, although she finds him appalling.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you agreeing with me that Regine will prostitute herself to Manders and, failing that, she will feel at home working in "The Captain Alving" brothel?

Mrs. Alving. Regina−−I can see quite well−−you are going to your ruin!

Regina. Pooh!−−goodbye.

Ibsen was born a Lutheran. Yesterday morning, in a Lutheran (Bach Cantata) service in Melbourne, antiphonal Psalm 30 included the cantor lines:
...weeping may endure for a night,
but joy cometh in the morning.
02-17-2009, 01:18 AM
Janine

Big day today and will answer all tomorrow hopefully. The stress is off for now but my eyes are shutting from fatigue. Be patient, Gladys, and I will be back soon.

Adding to this - it is Tues now and I am going out this evening. I haven't finished the play yet. Hope I am not holding you up too much, Gladys. I will try to post something tomorrow. I have to warn you, I read very slowly.
02-18-2009, 12:18 AM
Gladys

Hurdles in understanding Act III

I too read slowly, Janine, though faster by the third, fourth or fifth read.

This respite in our discussion has allowed me to systematically imagine each step the ending through all eyes. Only Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot' occasioned more reflection.

The interaction in Act III between Mrs Alving and Oswald is a minefield of emotional complexity. Some of the stumbling blocks, which must be explained, include:

Mrs. Alving (coming in from the garden). I can't get him away from the fire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. Everything will be burned up; nothing will be left that is in memory of my father. Here am I being burned up, too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs: Alving. Let me dry your face, Oswald; you are all wet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. You said yourself this evening what would happen in your case if you stayed at home.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Well, then this boy[Captain Alving], full of the joy of life−−for he was just like a boy, then−−
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. I had been taught about duty, and the sort of thing that I believed in so long here. Everything seemed to turn upon duty−−my duty, or his duty−−and I am afraid I made your poor father's home unbearable to
him, Oswald.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. I only saw the one fact, that your father was a lost man before ever you were born.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Regina−−I can see quite well−−you are going to your ruin!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Yes, about your unhappy father. I am so afraid it may have been too much for you.
Oswald. What makes you think that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. When the child has nothing to thank his father for? When he has never known him?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Ghosts of beliefs!
Oswald (walking across the room). Yes, you might call them ghosts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. The sun is rising−−and you know all about it; so I don't feel the fear any longer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. I had one attack while I was abroad. It passed off quickly. But when I learned the condition I had been in, then this dreadful haunting fear took possession of me.
Mrs. Alving. That was the fear, then−−
Oswald. Yes, it is so indescribably horrible, you know. If only it had been an ordinary mortal disease−−. I am not so much afraid of dying; though, of course, I should like to live as long as I can.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. But this is so appallingly horrible. To become like a helpless child again−−to have to be fed, to have to be−−. Oh, it's unspeakable!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving (bending over him). ...You shall have everything you want, just as you did when you were a little child.−−There, now. The attack is over. You see how easily it passed off! I knew it would.−−And look, Oswald, what a lovely day we are going to have? Brilliant sunshine. Now you will be able to see your home properly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oswald. (who has been sitting motionless in the armchair, with his back to the scene outside, suddenly says:-) Mother, give me the sun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs. Alving. (going up to him). ...(Throws herself on her knees beside him and shakes him.) Oswald! Oswald! Look at me! Don't you know me!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
02-18-2009, 12:32 PM
Janine

Quote:

Mrs. Alving. I had been taught about duty, and the sort of thing that I believed in so long here. Everything seemed to turn upon duty−−my duty, or his duty−−and I am afraid I made your poor father's home unbearable to him, Oswald.

Just curious, why you underlined 'Everything', but neglected to point out how many time 'duty' is mentioned in this one paragraph - 4 times! I would have underlined the word. Obviously, Ibsen is stressing this point. I think that both Mrs. Alving and Manders are chained to 'duty'. 'duty' is mentioned often and emphatically in "The Master Builder", as well. I'm sure it is stated often in "A Doll's House". Duty was a prominent and recurrent theme for Ibsen. Throughout the play "Ghosts", I would like to know how many times exactly, the word is spoken. I may make a study of that myself and count them, after I finish my reading. I had to go out yesterday and will be out today and most of tomorrow; can't be helped. I probably won't get back to this until well into Friday. I will discuss the other lines you have mentioned above with the underlined phrases or words then.

Quote:

Only Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot' occasioned more reflection.

How true, how true...I am still thinking, from time to time, about that ending in the "Idiot" ...it sort of haunts me like "Ghosts".
02-18-2009, 09:40 PM
Gladys

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Just curious, why you underlined 'Everything', but neglected to point out how many time 'duty' is mentioned

'Everything' is poignant, particularly in the ending, where Oswald and his mother end up with nothing - not even the ghosts of past beliefs, which vanish with the sunrise. Consider also the following:

Mrs. Alving. Everything of mine is insured−−the house and its contents, my livestock−−everything.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. That was my purchase money. I don't wish it to pass into Oswald's hands. My son shall have everything from me, I am determined.
~~~~
Oswald. ...Mother, have you noticed that everything I have painted has turned upon the joy of life?
~~~~
Oswald. Everything will be burned up; nothing will be left that is in memory of my father. Here am I being burned up, too.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Yes, now I can, Oswald. A little while ago you were talking about the joy of life, and what you said seemed to shed a new light upon everything in my whole life.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Mr. Manders knows everything.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving (bending over him). ...But now you will get some rest, at home with your own mother, my darling boy. You shall have everything you want, just as you did when you were a little child.−−There, now. The attack is over.
~~~~

As for 'duty', Mrs Alving realizes too late that salvation cannot be found in duty but in 'the joy of life'. She never provided such joy to her husband or her son, and all that finally remains is to do her duty in respect to her son: to give instead of 'the joy of life', the the sorrow of death through euthanasia. 'You shall have everything.' Echoing Manders' admonition in Act I, she pitifully asks Oswald, "Don't you know me!".
02-18-2009, 11:53 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys

'Everything' is poignant, particularly in the ending, where Oswald and his mother end up with nothing - not even the ghosts of past beliefs, which vanish with the sunrise. Consider also the following:

Mrs. Alving. Everything of mine is insured−−the house and its contents, my livestock−−everything.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. That was my purchase money. I don't wish it to pass into Oswald's hands. My son shall have
everything from me, I am determined.
~~~~
Oswald. ...Mother, have you noticed that everything I have painted has turned upon the joy of life?
~~~~
Oswald. Everything will be burned up; nothing will be left that is in memory of my father. Here am I being
burned up, too.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Yes, now I can, Oswald. A little while ago you were talking about the joy of life, and what you said
seemed to shed a new light upon everything in my whole life.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving. Mr. Manders knows everything.
~~~~
Mrs. Alving (bending over him). ...But now you will get some rest, at home with your own mother, my darling boy. You shall have everything you want, just as you did when you were a little child.−−There, now. The attack is over.
~~~~

As for 'duty', Mrs Alving realizes too late that salvation cannot be found in duty but in 'the joy of life'. She never provided such joy to her husband or her son, and all that finally remains is to do her duty in respect to her son: to give instead of 'the joy of life', the the sorrow of death through euthanasia. 'You shall have everything.' Echoing Manders' admonition in Act I, she pitifully asks Oswald, "Don't you know me!".

Good job, Gladys - you are right; there is a lot of repeat and emphasis on the word 'everything'. In the Lawrence short story thread, we often underline words in the text, as we discuss each part and we learn so much more than we originally perceived. Lawrence makes use often of repetition like this, to drive home his point. Interesting to now see it evident in the play form. That final 'everything' is quite remarkable. It is like the others all lead up to that climatic moment and the final use of the word; making for a high dramatic effect. Interesting, isn't it?

It is funny, thoughout this play I have been thinking of 'Hamlet' for some odd reason; I think because of the mother/son relationship and the 'to be or not to be' aspect of the play; Oswald even says he would want to live, as Hamlet states as well, but both seem to know their fate and accept it at one point in the play. Both have tragic endings, the outcome of which has been determined by the father, both of which are no longer present in the play, both being dead and now 'ghosts' or spirits. Oddly enough, Oswald will most likely leave this world with the overdose of a lethal drug, morphine (poison when given in an overdose); likewise, Hamlet also dies from a drug, which is poison and irreversable. Perhaps Oswald's mother will partake of a drug to end her own life; who knows what will happen after this ending. Gertrude also whipped the sweat off the brow of Hamlet, as Helena whips the face/brow of Oswald. I wonder if Ibsen realised these parallels, when he wrote "Ghosts". Incest also plays a role in each play; in Hamlet he keeps mentioning his mother incestuous marriage to his uncle. If I look closer, I believe I could see even more parallels.

I should underline all the times 'duty' is mentioned as well. I am really very tired out now, since I got home not long ago. I am sort of fading away and still have to do a household taste, which I don't enjoy doing, however necessary. I will try to comment tomorrow night. I have somewhere to go tomorrow, as well in the daytime hours.
02-19-2009, 03:58 AM
Gladys

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Both have tragic endings, the outcome of which has been determined by the father, both of which are no longer present in the play, both being dead and now 'ghosts' or spirits. Oddly enough, Oswald will most likely leave this world with the overdose of a lethal drug, morphine (poison when given in an overdose)

I disagree that the outcome of Ghosts 'has been determined by the father'. Mrs Alving, rather than Oswald, seems the focus of this play. Her decisions and actions, founded on duty, determine the crucial outcomes. Her husband's despair and Oswald's dread derive from her behaviour.

Oswald. I had one attack while I was abroad. It passed off quickly. But when I learned the condition I had been in, then this dreadful haunting fear took possession of me.

Mrs. Alving. That was the fear, then−−

Oswald. Yes, it is so indescribably horrible, you know. If only it had been an ordinary mortal disease−−. I am not so much afraid of dying; though, of course, I should like to live as long as I can.

Oswald can cope with Syphilis and dying, but much worse is the 'dreadful haunting fear' of the helpless child - and later the syphilitic adult stranded in an insane second childhood - abandoned without mercy to a cold and empty world. Homeless in a world without joy. So Mrs Alving's leaving, combined with sunlight after weeks of ceaseless rain, bring back memories of the 7-year-old that crush Oswald forever.

Oswald. (following her). Don't leave me! Where are you going?
~~~~

And look, Oswald, what a lovely day we are going to have? Brilliant sunshine. Now you will be able to see your home properly.

He does! Oswald's end is understandable but the 'speechless horror' of his mother, confronting her legacy to her son, Regine and her husband is breathtaking. Notwithstanding, she did her duty. Ibsen weaves terrible irony in Pastor Manders' words from Act I:

Manders. Just as once you forsook your duty as a wife, so, since then, you have forsaken your duty as a mother.

Do you see the ending, Janine, as I do?
02-24-2009, 02:51 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys

I disagree that the outcome of Ghosts 'has been determined by the father'. Mrs Alving, rather than Oswald, seems the focus of this play. Her decisions and actions, founded on duty, determine the crucial outcomes.

Gladys, I was only pointing to the fact that Oswald's father's philandering lifestyle and his veneral disease determines Oswald's death, physically speaking, in the end; it creates that connection as well of father and son. It was probably stretching comparisons a bit to bring up Hamlet but, the two plays seem to have some similarities; in Hamlet his mother is not entirely blameless either; in fact, most of Hamlet's anger is directed at her or women as representative of his mother. Hamlet is send away to school in England but then comes home like Oswald but feels his home is now a prison. In other respects, both plays engage characters who don't actually now exist - both are ghosts in some aspect; yet both are prominent characters in the plays. I can think of other comparisons to the Shakespeare play. I am sure Ibsen had to have been influenced, if even subconsciously.

You are probably correct in saying the play's focus is on Mrs. Alving. Yes, duty is huge element and her strict belief in accepting her duty has actually been the cause of all the problems. Like she she admitted that she never let her husband feel happiness or the joy of living. I don't think I can blame Mrs. Alving entirely but she it took the two parents to create the situation, so one can't blame the husband entirely.

Quote:

Her husband's despair and Oswald's dread derive from her behaviour.

Maybe explain this more clearly to me. I don't see how Oswald having now the complete knowledge that he has incurable syphilis and is indeed fated to go mad and then die would not cause a normal person to have dread. I know I would dread any situation that would result in madness or losing ones faculties.

Oswald. I had one attack while I was abroad. It passed off quickly. But when I learned the condition I had been in, then this dreadful haunting fear took possession of me.

Mrs. Alving. That was the fear, then−−

Oswald. Yes, it is so indescribably horrible, you know. If only it had been an ordinary mortal disease−−. I am not so much afraid of dying; though, of course, I should like to live as long as I can.

Quote:

Oswald can cope with Syphilis and dying, but much worse is the 'dreadful haunting fear' of the helpless child - and later the syphilitic adult stranded in an insane second childhood - abandoned without mercy to a cold and empty world. Homeless in a world without joy. So Mrs Alving's leaving, combined with sunlight after weeks of ceaseless rain, bring back memories of the 7-year-old that crush Oswald forever.

Oswald. (following her). Don't leave me! Where are you going?
~~~~

Oh, yes, I see the abandonment issue more clearly. Right - he is reliving what he went through when he was taken from the house at age 7 - interesting aspect of the play. There is much layering in this play. I think it is a great piece of literature - brilliant.

And look, Oswald, what a lovely day we are going to have? Brilliant sunshine. Now you will be able to see your home properly.

Quote:

He does! Oswald's end is understandable but the 'speechless horror' of his mother, confronting her legacy to her son, Regine and her husband is breathtaking. Notwithstanding, she did her duty. Ibsen weaves terrible irony in Pastor Manders' words from Act I:

Manders. Just as once you forsook your duty as a wife, so, since then, you have forsaken your duty as a mother.

Right. I read this part many times over. He definitely puts all blame on Mrs. Alving and she does not deny any of it.

Quote:

Do you see the ending, Janine, as I do?

Exactly how do you mean? It is a pretty open-ened ending and not sure now what will happen ultimately. I like that it leaves one asking a lot of questions; this way the play stays with you long after you close the last page. I know I will be watching the play more than the times I watched it already. I tend to obsess on things like this.
02-24-2009, 05:35 AM
Gladys

I hope your home affairs, Janine, are settling down now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Both plays engage characters who don't actually now exist - both are ghosts in some aspect

I think Ibsen is more concerned with the ghosts of belief and prejudice than with deceased individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Maybe explain this more clearly to me. I don't see how Oswald having now the complete knowledge that he has incurable syphilis and is indeed fated to go mad and then die would not cause a normal person to have dread. I know I would dread any situation that would result in madness or losing ones faculties.

While many people would dread tertiary syphilis, this 'ordinary mortal disease' is nothing alongside Oswald's paranoia at the prospect of being once again an abandoned child, homeless and unloved. Ibsen esteems genuine family relationships.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Manders. Just as once you forsook your duty as a wife, so, since then, you have forsaken your duty as a mother.

Right. I read this part many times over. He definitely puts all blame on Mrs. Alving and she does not deny any of it.

Ibsen transfers much of that blame to Manders and the 'pillars of society'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

It is a pretty open-ended ending and not sure now what will happen ultimately.

Open-ended? I don't think so. Manders and Regine are gone. Oswald is the helpless child, again totally at the mercy of his mother, who has the unenviable choice of leaving Oswald to his nightmare of helplessness, or giving him everything, the one thing he seeks: the black and life extinguishing sorrow of death. Well might she say, 'No, no, no!−−Yes!−−no, no!'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladys

Do you see the ending, Janine, as I do?

I mean: does the view I'm putting deal with the list of difficult passages I highlighted earlier in the thread?

Finally in bright sunlight, Oswald's worst fears have been vindicated. Almost catatonic, he asks along with the 7-yr-child, for that 'joy of life' which, dreadfully, has been withheld from both. And his mother had scuttled Regine, his last ray of hope.

Oswald. (who has been sitting motionless in the armchair, with his back to the scene outside, suddenly says -)
Mother, give me the sun.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page