Character of Torvald Helmer / A male Chauvinist :
Torvald Helmer sees himself as the epitome of the respectable nineteenth century husband. He treats
his wife as a winsome little creature, capable of playful deception but dependent upon his largesse: and
knowledge of the outside world. Although he chastises her for being extravagant, he delights in being
able to give her presents of money. One of the most obvious ways in which he maintains his dominance
over Nora lies in his financial control of the household; ironically it is his refusal to compromise his
honour by borrowing money that gives Nora the chance to prove her own ingenuity and love as well as
ultimately destroying their security. Helmer’s apparent pomposity and lack of perception are the
stereotyped response of the domestic male to his role. His patronising or teasing tone whenever he
addresses Nora does not let up even in the face of her distress — that is, until she demands that they
talk seriously. The games he and Nora play all seem designed to maintain his role as dominant male. As
Nora says, he is so proud of being a man', and yet it is this very pride which ensures that the miracle she
expects can never happen.
We get a still better idea of Helmer’s character when Nora Act II) recommends Krogstad s case to him
saying that Helmer must let Krogstad keep his job in the bank. Helmer says that she is proving to be a
very obstinate woman in once again recommending Krogstad to him. He gives several reasons, one after
the other, why he cannot allow Krogstad to keep his job in the bank. But his real reason for not allowing
Krogstad to continue at his post comes out when he goes on to say that he might have overlooked
Krogstad’s moral lapses in view of the fact that Krogstad is a good worker, out that he is unable keep
that man in the bank because of his habit of speaking to him in too familiar a manner. This familiar
banner, which Krogstad always adopts towards him, would make Helmer’s Position at the bank as its
manager absolutely intolerable, says [Link] Helmer can condone the moral lapses of which
Krogstad had been guilty in the past, but he cannot tolerate Krogstad’s familiar manner of speaking to
him in the presence of other people. This is certainly an unpleasant trait in Helmer s character.
But this proves to be an idle boast afterwards. Subsequently (in Act III) he says in so many words that he
has many times wished that Nora were threatened by some terrible danger so that he could risk even
his life to save her. But as soon as his assertions are put to the test, he fails miserably. Not only does he
fail as a husband who had been claiming to be his wife’s protector, but he fails also to uphold the moral
values of which he has been boasting so much. When he goes through Krogstad’s letter revealing the
long-kept secret of Nora, all his love for her collapses because his own reputation is now in danger. Nora
had thought that he would take all the blame for her guilty action upon himself but, contrary to her
expectations, he comes down heavily upon her.
Faced with a crisis in his life, Helmer proves unequal to the occasion. He brings all sorts of accusations
against his wife, calling her a hypocrite, a liar, and, worse than that, a criminal. He describes her action in
having forged her father’s signature as utterly squalid and disgusting. He tells her that she has ruined his
entire happiness and put his whole future in danger.
He would have to do whatever Krogstad wants him to do, because there is no alternative before him if
he has to save his name and his reputation. It is clear from all this that Helmer’s moral principles were
shallow and fragile, and that he cannot sustain them when he is put to the test. Nora had thought that
he would boldly face the consequences of what she had done and would even take upon himself the
blame for her criminal act. But he fails miserably to come up to her expectations. Not only that; he goes
so far as almost to disown her.
Helmer’s reaction to Krogstad’s second letter further emphasizes some of the weaknesses of his
character which have already been brought to our notice. As soon as the danger from Krogstad ends, he
relapses into his original self-complacency. He once again speaks of himself as her protector and her
preceptor. He again assumes airs of superiority and says that he would from now on give her all the
advice and guidance that she needs. “I have forgiven you, Nora, I swear it! I have forgiven you !” he says.
Having seen through and experienced her husband’s double standards, Nora is no longer prepared to be
considered her husband’s “property” in a male-dominated society. She has been treated like a “doll”
both by her husband and father all along. She wants to look for her own individuality; she wants to be
independent and discover her potentialities in an uncertain world. She tells a bewildered and shocked
Torvald that she has decided to leave him in quest of her identity in an uncertain world. She returns his
wedding ring to him and demands her own back to assert her independence, setting him free from all
obligations to her.
Nora slams the door on Torvald, who is shell-shocked at his wife’s sudden change of attitude. He ends
up as a pathetic figure when Nora forsakes him. We do feel sorry for him, but we also realise that he has
brought this punishment upon himself by his own behaviour and by his age old ideas of the relations
between a husband and a wife in a male-dominated society. His egoism, his outdated ideas of
respectability, his ingrained conservatism and conventionality, his self-centredness and complacency, his
feeling of his own moral superiority and, above all, his possessive attitude towards his wife are the
causes of his undoing.
