Oh, so difficult to grasp!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

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

---

Oh, concerning my sister it is still touch and go; take one day at a time; no easy solution but things seem more hopeful now. The other was a house emergency - mechancial breakdown - been resolved, thank goodness. Thanks for hoping for the best. Things could always be worse.

Quote:

---

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

---

Definitely, I do agree with that.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, that is absolutely true. Now that actually clears up the difference for me; thanks Gladys.

Quote:

---

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

---

True again.

Quote:

---

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!'.

---

I entirely see you point now. This helps a lot in fully understanding that ending. It was just strange she should say no as her last word. I wondered about that and what the final outcome would be. Could a mother really administer that lethal dose to her only son? I am a mother of an only son so I think it would be so horrific and hardly imaginable. But Mrs. Alving has been a person tied to 'duty', so she just might be able to do it in the end.

Quote:

---

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

---

Yes, that has helped a great deal. I love these discussions. We all learn so much from each other. I think this has been an A1 discussion and it proves one thing - it just take two people to discuss really; more are nice but not always necessary. Thanks for your insights, Gladys. I really do appreciate your repeat readings and attention to detail. I am 'detail' person myself. In the Lawrence short story thread, I very much like to 'dissect' the text (sometimes to a fault) and get below the surface to see just what the author is getting at.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Well put. I think we do agree on the ending. I like the idea of his becoming that 7 yr old boy again. Now I see the importance/significance of that factor in the end of the play. It is a lot clearer to me. Thanks again for pointing that out specifically. Very good observation, Gladys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I love these discussions. We all learn so much from each other.

---

Indeed, Janine, I began our discussion totally baffled by the play and ended with understanding.

Quote:

---

Oswald's paranoia at the prospect of being once again an abandoned child

---

I was wrong. Oswald's fear of abandonment is neither extreme nor irrational. What happened to the 7-yr-old was truly terrible: an indictment of society.

Following a brainwave overnight, I've posted a new thread: Why the title 'Ghosts'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

What are we to make of the other homes in the play, the two memorials: the incinerated orphanage and finally Jacob Engstrand's "Chamberlain Alving's Home" for sailors?

---

The quote above concludes my opening post of six months ago. There are always further questions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

Indeed, Janine, I began our discussion totally baffled by the play and ended with understanding.

---

That is saying a lot, Gladys; you went from 'Oh so difficult to grasp' to 'understanding'. See, these discussions really are invaluable and oh so helpful for our understanding the works better.

Quote:

---

I was wrong. Oswald's fear of abandonment is neither extreme nor irrational. What happened to the 7-yr-old was truly terrible: an indictment of society.

---

OK, I would agree with that. Yes, for a 7 yr old the abandonment issue was huge and it was an indictment of society.

Quote:

---

Following a brainwave overnight, I've posted a new thread: Why the title 'Ghosts'?

---

You are a riot, Gladys! How many spin-off threads do we now have on "Ghosts"? I am just waiting to see what you come up with next.;):lol:

Quote:

---

The quote above concludes my opening post of six months ago. There are always further questions!

---

Always...how true....

Here is something I dug up on the play and found interesting:

Quote:

---

The ‘‘ghosts’’ in this play are the taboo topics that cannot be openly discussed. This drama is one of Ibsen’s most powerful works, but also one of his most controversial. Its initial publication sold only a few copies, with most of those printed returned to the publisher and no new edition printed until thirteen years later. It was not performed in Ibsen’s native Norway for almost a decade after its world debut in Chicago. In 1898, at a dinner in Ibsen’s honor at the Royal Palace in Stockholm, King Oscar II expressed the opinion that Ghosts was not a good play, and that Ibsen should not have written it. After a moment of silence, the playwright replied, ‘‘Your majesty, I had to write Ghosts.’’

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

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.

---

This morning I was listening to the Shakespearean guru, Harold Bloom, discussing Hamlet's relationship with his mother Gertrude. Bloom drew attention to one similarity with Oswald, Janine, that you have not mentioned: neither son can be certain of paternity.

Hamlet, whose closest childhood friend was the jester Yorick, appears to have had little closeness or love from mother or father. The ghost talks of Hamlet's love for him, not vice versa, and appears later only out of concern for Gertrude. Hamlet has reason to believe that Gertrude's relationship with Claudius is decades old, and may well have been sexual. Bloom, himself says, that it is not inconceivable that Hamlet is Claudius' son!

Has Ibsen made this link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

This morning I was listening to the Shakespearean guru, Harold Bloom, discussing Hamlet's relationship with his mother Gertrude. Bloom drew attention to one similarity with Oswald, Janine, that you have not mentioned: neither son can be certain of paternity.

Hamlet, whose closest childhood friend was the jester Yorick, appears to have had little closeness or love from mother or father. The ghost talks of Hamlet's love for him, not vice versa, and appears later only out of concern for Gertrude. Hamlet has reason to believe that Gertrude's relationship with Claudius is decades old, and may well have been sexual. Bloom, himself says, that it is not inconceivable that Hamlet is Claudius' son!

Has Ibsen made this link?

---

Wow, that is a mind boggler. I had never thought of that possibility before. I am huge on pondering "Hamlet", so that fascinates me. Now, that would be a giant twist to the plot. What then was the motive of the ghostly king? Now, Gladys, are you going to start threads now on 'Hamlet's true paternity?' I can't keep up with you as it is. Intriguing thought though. I will think about it further and see what I come up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

I don't think Regina will end up living with Manders ... 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.

---

Janine, here's a new angle on the matter. As a young man, Ibsen had fled the barren hypocrisy of Norway society for Rome. In 'Ghosts' he tells of the life-sapping nature of small town community, which ruins all except the resilient Mrs Alving. Those ruined include not only Captain Alving and his children but also 'your model husbands and fathers'.

Oswald. Well, you can take their word for it, unhesitatingly. Some of them are experts in the matter. (Putting his hands to his head.) To think that the glorious freedom of the beautiful life over there should be so besmirched!

Who in the play is representative of these 'model husbands and fathers' that so besmirch society? Captain Alving died a decade ago; Mrs Alving, Regine and Oswald hardly qualify; Engstrand is a crippled carpenter and drunkard, lacking in social standing. That only leaves Manders...

I’m sure Ibsen would agree that ‘Manders fights himself, as a man, more than we realise’, which is probably true of all 'your model husbands and fathers'. Since community hypocrisy in Norway is soul destroying, it follows that Manders - like the late Captain Alving - is a soul destroyed.