Chekhov's Gun: Gender Roles in A Doll's House

While it is easy to dismiss the odd relationship between Torvald and Nora as a relic of 19th century European culture, it does play a central role in the story and deserves to be addressed.  From the beginning of Act I, it is clear that Torvald and Nora have an idiosyncratic relationship even by the standards of the time.  While it was seemingly common for the husband to have all the power in marriages at the time, the extent to which Torvald demeans and even dehumanizes Nora is truly staggering.  Torvald treats Nora like property throughout the play, forcing her to have sex and smothering all of her attempts to assert herself.  While he is not actively cruel to Nora throughout the play, this flawed relationship leads, either directly or indirectly, to all the conflicts in the play.

 While there is nothing directly wrong with the marriage, because Torvald does not take Nora seriously, he does not feel that she can do anything without his help.  This leads to an innate lack of trust between the two when Nora gets herself into trouble.  While Nora is somewhat at fault for not taking a more active role in asserting her position and refusing to accept the consequences of some of her actions, the true problems in the marriage all lie with Torvald.  He created the situation through his archaic views on marriage, views that Ibsen criticizes through the effect that they have on Nora.  During the moment of truth, when Torvald reads Krogstad's letters, he spoils a chance to redeem his character by verbally berating Nora.  His anger seems to stem less from the direness of the situation (Krogstad has already forgiven Nora by this point), than from her perceived attempt to undermine his authority as husband.  Torvald calls Nora a liar and a hypocrite, conveniently forgetting that she did what she did in order to save his life.  Nora is certainly not a perfect character in her own right. She is vain and often oblivious by modern standards, but as the play progresses the reader gains sympathy for her as they begin to see the situation that she is forced to deal with at home, a situation that is created by Torvald's attitude towards women and marriage.

Hamlet's Hastiness: a Harbinger of Horrors

Much has been made in class about Hamlet's perceived tragic flaw. That is, his inability to act quickly and decisively. However, just to be a contrarian, I plan argue the exact opposite: not only is Hamlet's indecision about his course of action a justified human response to his situation, but it is also true that the worst tragedies in the play occur when Hamlet acts rashly without considering other possibilities. Indeed, it can be argued that the play would not have the tragic ending that it does had Hamlet simply thought a bit more before acting.
First of all, while it is easy to ridicule Hamlet for not acting when, from the audience's perspective, it is fairly obvious that Claudius is guilty, it is important to look at the larger perspective of the potential act. At the time of play, Hamlet is still a young man who has probably never even seriously considered killing another man, much less actually doing the deed. And yet, he is being told to kill a blood relative by, of all people, a ghost that happens to look like his father. Even considering Hamlet's mental state and natural suspicion of his uncle, killing another human being simply because a ghost tells him to is somewhat hard to justify. And when one considers the social and religious ramifications of killing one's uncle (not to even mention the political implications of killing the King of Denmark), it is perfectly understandable that Hamlet wishes to acquire further evidence before doing something so drastic and unalterable.
In addition, when Hamlet does depart from form and act drastically, it almost always ends in failure and tragedy. For example, when Hamlet is confronted by Ophelia in Act 3 scene 1, he assumes that Ophelia is attempting to end their relationship and rashly yells at her. Not only does Hamlet lose a chance at love as well as a invaluable ally to his revenge plot, but he also seals Ophelia's fate, causing irreparable mental and emotional damage that eventually leads to her suicide. Of course, the most obvious instance of Hamlet acting rashly in the first four acts is his stabbing of Polonius, which was a terrible act not only because of the act itself, but also because of its effect on the rest of the plot. After hearing about his father's death, Laertes vows to kill his father's assassin, thus giving Claudius a useful ally and a means to kill Hamlet without getting his hands dirty. Who knows how long Hamlet's revenge plot might have gone on without Laertes drawing him into a duel to the death. For this reason, it is not a stretch to suggest that had Hamlet simply thought a bit more before ramming his sword through the curtain and killing Polonius, the story might have had a very different ending.