Hedda Gabler Essay Analysis

In this essay by Weller Embler, which analyses the play of Hedda Gabler, by Ibsen, Embler states that he believes that Hedda is a tragedy, and one of Ibsen's purest. He says that Hedda's boredom, and her inability to deal with her husbands boring personality drives her to be discontent. I would agree with this, as we can see her boredom through her use of pistols as toys, and her constant need to meddle and mess with people. I would also agree that there is some merit to the fact that there is tragedy in this play, but I would not agree that Hedda is a tragedy.

Firstly, we see that that Hedda constantly lives her life to the fullest, and does whatever she wants, as a free woman. She eventually dies, which would typically be a staple of a tragedy, but the way that she dies isn't tragic at all, to me. I find that she dies free, and free of her repression, which, to Hedda, would be the ideal way to die. The fact that Hedda dies through suicide, and kills her unborn child, along with seriously hurting two people that love her very much, is rather tragic.

Another thing that I disagree with, and my classmate Gautam agrees with me on, is the fact that Embler says that the play is "a study of decay". He says that throughout the play, Hedda is slowly decaying. I would 100% disagree with this. Throughout the play, we see Hedda as a fairly static character, who simply doesn't care about what is going on. I disagree that anybody really changes throughout the play, and that, in fact, there are only two things that actually happen. The burning of the manuscript and the suicide at the end.

All in all, I feel like this essay had some good analysis of Hedda, and that it made some very good points. However, I don't agree with anything that it says, because I feel that he takes analysis without actually providing any context for it, or without looking deeper into the characters of the play.


A Note on Ibsen’s “Hedda Gabler”
Weller Embler
College English , Vol. 7, No. 8 (May, 1946), pp. 456-458
Link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/370462

Blog Portfolio Quater 7

This is the penultimate blog portfolio. This quarter, we spent the majority of time on three plays. These plays were The Heidi Chronicles, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Hedda Gabler. All three books were radically different, in both style and tone, but all had similar themes and messages.

Coverage:
Gender Descriptive Words in A Streetcar Named Desire

This blog entry describes the use of gender specific language in the play "A Streetcar Named Desire".

Poetry In Streetcar

This entry describes the significance of The Portuguese 43 in " A Streetcar Named Desire".

Poker And Bathing

This entry describes the significance of bathing and poker in "A Streetcar Named Desire" and how they characterise Stanley and Blanche.

Itallics In Streetcar

This blog describes the use of itallics in "A StreetCar Named Desire", and how they help define the style of Tennesse Williams

A Streetcar Named Desire Film Comparison

This blog describes the comparison between the film production of Streetcar, and the play version.

Streetcar Set

This blog post describes my own invention of a set for Streetcar, and how it would be used.

The Scoop On Scoop

This blog post talks about the character of Scoop, and how he acts as a foil to Heidi, in the Heidi Chronicles.

Scoop Vs Stanley

This post talks about the contrast and comparison between Scoop and Stanley, from "The Heidi Chronicles" and "A Streetcar Named Desire", respectively.

Hedda As Modern Woman

This blog entry is my response to an article written about Hedda Gabler. I very much disagreed with the article.


Depth:


I feel that the blog that I spent the most time on, and the one that showcases my abilities as an in-depth literature analyser is the comparison between film and play versions of Streetcar. I found that it led me to analyse different points, in a lot more detail than I would have if I had just watched the play.

Film Comparison

Interaction:
This article shows me disagreeing with what Gautam said about Hedda Gabler, and also disagreeing with his interpretation of the article.

Hedda As Modern Woman

Discussion:

Scoop Vs Stanley

This blog launched a discussion between me and Saumya over the negative portrayal of Scoop, and the similarities between him and Stanley.

Xeno-Blogging:

In this post, I commented on Saumya's interpretation of art in Heidi. I disagreed with some of what she was saying, but thought that she made some good points.

Art In Heidi

Wild Card:

This post is a short story that I've been working on, which is based on a recurring dream that I've been having recently. Its fairly graphic, but its been helping me to deal with it.

Dream

Dream

This is a little story that I've been working on. Its based on a recurring dream that I've been having recently. It does get a little graphic, so don't read, if you're squeamish.



My eyes began to open, my head feeling groggy and weak. This confused me, I didn’t remember drinking anything last night, and I would have remembered taking a sleeping pill. I thought about this for a moment, and then it hit me. I couldn’t see anything. My eyes were wide open now, and there was a blackness that scared me. It was right then that I noticed that something was covering my face. I reached up, horrified. Or at least, I tried to. As I raised my hands, a searing pain ran up arms. I couldn’t move my wrists, it was as if I had been handcuffed. I moved my arms, testing what was keeping them still. I HAD been handcuffed. My arms had been pulled behind me, and handcuffed through the back of the chair, which seemed like one of my dining chairs

My body went into shock. Why was I handcuffed? I didn’t have any enemies. I didn’t know anybody that would want me taken. I didn’t know any girls. Nobody would want me handcuffed.  What was going on? I began to struggle. My legs began to kick. My claustrophobia began to close in. I couldn’t see anything, and my arms were trapped. My chair was rocking now, my movements taking it from side to side. My arms were hurting, but I needed freedom. I need to get that mask off. I had to. It was right then that my chair fell over, and I slammed my head into the ground.

Sometime later, I woke. I could feel a sticky liquid on my scalp, sticking the mask to my head. Blood, I knew it. I felt woozy. I also noticed that I was sitting up again. Somebody had come and checked on me, while I was unconscious. I grimaced. It was right then, that the mask was pulled off my head. The pain, from the mask ripping away flesh on my head as the blood went away with it, burned, and I screamed in terror and pain. I was blinded as bright light flooded into my eyes, and I felt woozy, as if I had a concussion, which I was certain I did.

I felt a shove, and fell to my knees. My head rung, and I turned around, a grimace on my lips. A man was standing there, a pistol in his hand, and a balaclava over his head. He pointed it at me, with the .45 barrel staring me in the eye.

“Get up.”
I did so.

“Come here.”
I did so.


The man smiled at me. “Look, kid. We have a job to do. Your father sent us to get you to do something. We have permission to do whatever we want, until you do it. So you’d better listen up.” That was who was behind it. My father. The man behind all my misery. I nodded. There was something about this man that I recognised, but I couldn’t tell what. I would have to bear with him, until I could figure it out.

“Your father wants you to learn what its like to kill. So that you can get into the family business.” I knew that this was going to go bad, quick. I used to refuse to kill, back then. “We’ve got somebody here, a young woman. Nobody you know, your father needs her in the ground. We figured we would kill two birds with one stone.” He snickered at his extremely unfunny pun.
“Why don’t you follow me? And don’t think about running. Those handcuffs are set to explode. You make a break for it, and we’ll blow your hands off. This gave me pause. I needed my hands. Couldn’t really do much without them, could I? I fell into step behind the man, as he walked out of the room, and down what seemed to be a stone corridor.

His hand was clutched tightly around the pistol, as if he was nervous. Maybe he didn’t want anything to do with this either. I figured that this was the time to ask. “Who are you?” I stammered, my nervous teeth chattering together.
“You don’t want to know, kid.”
That made my fears worse. I did know this man.

We kept walking down the corridor, me stumbling a little, my head aching, and what seemed to be vertigo settling in. We reached a large wooden door, and the man pulled it open. He pushed me through, and I fell to my knees, grazing both of them. I stood up, stumbling to my knees, and felt blood dripping down them. I grimaced again, knowing that that wasn’t the worst of what was coming.

Still on my knees, I look ahead of me. There was a girl sitting there. She was about 5’7. Maybe four or five years older than me. She was gagged, but her eyes were wide in terror. She had long, blonde hair, which was grimy and tangled. She must have been in here for a while. Her eyes were blue, and she was quite a pretty girl. How could my father do this to somebody?

The man turned to me. “That’s her. She was giving your father some trouble. Snooping around, something about the college paper. He needs her gone.”

I shook my head. I wasn’t going to have a part in my father’s twisted games. I’d escaped him once, and I didn’t know how he’d found me this time. I wasn’t going to get back into this. “I’m not going to kill this girl for you.” The girl shrieked at this, or tried to, as her gag muffled it. The man smiled. “Oh. You’re going to want to, soon enough. Just to end it.”

The man nodded behind me, and I felt a massive pain in the back of my knee, as a large wooden object slammed into it. I cried out in pain, and looked down, my leg bent at an awkward angle. It wasn’t broken, I could tell that. But I couldn’t put weight on it. The man smiled at me. “Do it. Or it’ll get worse.” I looked at the girl, and I could see tears welling up in her eyes. I shook my head again, and again, the object, which I thought to be a bat, slammed into my leg. This time, from the front. I felt my knee crumple under the blow, and I bit down on my tongue in pain. Blood began to drip out of my lips, and I feel to the ground once more.

“I won’t do it. You’ll have to kill me.”

“Oh, you know we can’t do that, boy. Your father will kill us. And this girl still needs to die. So even if we killed you, we would still have to off her. Might as well do it yourself, and save yourself in the process.”

I shook my head once more.

“I admire your bravery, kid. But I can’t have any of that. Stan, take off his handcuffs. I don’t want to wreck his legs anymore. Let’s deal with his hands now. “

The man with the bat, standing behind me, chuckled, and removed the handcuffs from my wrists. I rubbed them, feeling the raw skin hurt as I touched it. I felt my hand being grabbed, and the man behind me saying, in a slight Irish accent, “Your last chance. Either you do it, or I’ll break your fingers.” That gave me pause. I needed my fingers for my job. Without them, I would be nothing. I told the guy to wait a moment. To let me stand, and catch my breath.

I stood, or tried to, as I had to catch myself when I tried to put weight onto my left leg. I looked at the girl. She couldn’t have done anything that awful. She was young. My father was evil. I couldn’t kill her. I turned to the first man, who’s name I still hadn’t figured out.

“I’ll do it.”

The girl shrieked again, and began to shake. I looked at her, sadness in my face. I had to do it. If I didn’t, they would hurt me more, and kill her anyway. I might as well come off ahead.

Hedda as "Modern Woman" response

The first part of the article that I tend to agree with is the fact that people say that Ibsen was writing Hedda as an "international" play, and to an extent, an "international"woman. I believe that Ibsen wrote Hedda as a modern day Norwegian heroine, and that it is only because of the way that the world was changing. It enabled people to make parallels between Hedda and their own societies, but I don't believe this was Ibsen's intention. I agree with the article, in that it is obvious that Ibsen wanted the play to be Norway-centric, due to the fjord references, the very Scandinavian appearance of Thea, and other factors. Hedda can appear to be an international woman, but I don't believe that was the intent of Ibsen, when he wrote the book.

What interests me more is the fact that the author constantly refers to Hedda as the "modern woman". I don't know how much I agree with this. Hedda seems to have some modern day thoughts, that the majority of women have now-a-days, but I disagree that this makes her a unique character. Throughout literature, we see women using their power to manipulate, and to better themselves. Hedda is simply another example of this. In As You Like It, we see Rosalind using her beauty and her power of Orlando to get what she wants, and we also see her expressing herself how she wants, although she does need to dress up as a man to do this.

Another example of a woman that uses her sensuality, and her mind, to manipulate men is Lady Brett Ashley from The Sun Also Rises. Brett manipulates Cohn, manipulates Mike, and manipulates Jake, simply because she can. She doesn't seem to get any feeling of success or accomplishment after doing this, she just does it. This is almost exactly like Hedda, who simply does things for the sake of it. When Hedda destroyed the manuscript, she did it simply to mess with Mr. Elvsted. Not to gain some self-satisfaction from it.

The author of this article, William Arthur, states that Ibsen has no heroines. I disagree 100% with this. Ibsen shows Hedda in a spotlight, and seems to make it as if she is a shining symbol of the woman. He doesn't make her a simple woman, but glorifies her, and idolizes her. All of the other characters do this, which makes it hard to ignore. It is as if Ibsen is TELLING us to worship Hedda.

In Gautam's blog, he agrees with this fact, but says that he feels as if Ibsen is portraying Hedda in a bad light. He says that he tries to make her seem as bad as he can, and says that he uses her to show the class struggle going on in Norway at the time. I disagree with that, and say that he glorifies her, and uses that as a way to show the fact that all fantastic people have a dark side.

I don't really like this article, because it seems that he doesn't support any of his arguments, and it kinda seems as if he is pandering to defend Hedda, without any basis for his arguments.

Scoop vs Stanley

Scoop Rosenbam and Stanley Kowalski are both characters from plays, The Heidi Chronicles and A Streetcar Named Desire, respectively. Both are portrayed in a negative light by the playwrights, and are used to show the negative sides of men. This is done in a variety of ways, and very different ones, from character to character.

Scoop is shown as a very analytical man, who rates everything, including women. He states at one point that Heidi is a perfect 10, but that he settled for a good 6. This shows the objectification that Scoop feels towards women. However, he does it out of habit, not out of any malicious intention. He is seen as rating bands, newspapers, and all sorts of other things, which shows him as simply being analytical, and not emotional.

This is a stark contrast to Stanley, who again rates women, but in a much more sinister way. He looks women up and down at the first chance he gets. He objectifies them, treats them like rubbish. Stanley treats women with malicious intent, even famously raping Blanche. This is completely different to Scoop, who it is possible to see as timid towards women.

Scoop is scared of what would happen if he was to date or even marry Heidi, he fears the inevitable conflict that it would bring for them, and knowing that it would make them less happy, he doesn't "make a move". This shows him to care about Heidi a lot more than is immediately obvious in the play. Scoop is very pragmatic, and does what he believes is best for the situation, regardless of its immediate impact, or its "moral" status.  Stanley is similar, in that he doesn't care what the action looks like, morally, but he doesn't take his time. Stanley acts on instinct, and through passion

To be honest, the way to look at the comparison between the characters is like this. Both are two sides of the same mindset. Scoop represents the analytical and calculating side of the male psyche, the side that will take care of himself, and will be pragmatic and cold, doing what's best for himself. Stanely represents the passionate and impulsive side of the male psyche, and represents men who are completely governed by emotion and impulse.

The Scoop On Scoop!

Me and Komali wrote this post together, the original being on her blog.

• Scoop is not the antagonist; he is a foil to Heidi’s character. They are similar in some regards, but very different in others. At Scoop’s wedding, he tells Heidi:Scoop: “But I couldn’t dangle you anymore. And that’s why I got married today. So.” Heidi: “So. So now it’s all my fault.”
  Scoop: “Sure it is. You want other things in life than I do.”
  Heidi: “Really, like what?”
  Scoop: “Self-fulfillment. Self determination. Self-exaggeration.”
  Heidi: “That’s exactly what you want.”
  Scoop: “Right. Then you’d be competing with me.”
  They have similar interests, but Heidi does not want to compete with Scoop.
• I think Wasserstein agrees with the concept of feminism, but does not agree with the hypocritical approach most women take in order to combat inequality of the sexes, which is by portraying men as evil or chauvinistic. Scoop is thoroughly an intellectual and often highlights Heidi’s ignorance and lack of awareness about herself or her surroundings. For example, in the scene where the two meet, Heidi is drawn to Scoop, but he is acting superior, so she chooses to play a game with him by lying about her name and why she is at the McCarthy convention. When Heidi says that she finds Scoop irritating, he says, “That’s the first honest thing you’ve said all night!” Even then, Heidi doesn’t realize what he means- he knows her name isn’t Susan because she is wearing a name tag that says “Heidi,” which Heidi has conveniently forgotten about.
• Scoop also says, “You are too eager to categorize.” This shows how others interpret feminists, who don’t consider the fact that people are multi-faceted. They believe all men are evil and chauvinistic, but in reality, they can have other sides to them- kinder personalities. Scoop’s way of speaking, from the beginning, shows his maturity, whereas feminists can come across as somewhat childlike. At Scoop’s wedding, he speaks about “life choices” and Heidi says, “I have not made them yet.” Like children, feminists at that time wanted to own everything, they felt that was the way to establish their strength. Wasserstein believes that is excessive and that they should grasp more “adult” ideas.
• I think the biggest message Scoop is used to convey is that men will settle, but feminist women always want more; they cannot be satisfied. They pass the limit and their argument for equality becomes invalid because they have already achieved it. Scoop is “willing to settle for a secure six” when he marries Lisa, but Heidi never marries because she refuses to accept anyone less than a perfect 10.

• What techniques does Wasserstein use to convey this message? Dialogue

“I don’t want women ever to think they have to have it all. I think that’s a revolting concept. It’s so false! Sometimes you’ll have some things, and sometimes you’ll have other things. And you do not need it all at once; it’s not good for you.” -Emma Thompson

A Streecar Named Desire Film Comparison

The play “A Streetcar Named Desire” was very similar to the movie version when it came to plot. I felt that the lines recited in the movie were exactly the same in the play. However, a main problem I had with the movie was the actors. The actors were not exactly how I had pictured them while reading the play, and I prefer the characters I imagined in my mind.

The emotion that I felt from the characters while reading the play was much more powerful than in the movie. For instance, when Blanche was about to be raped by Stanley in the play, there was a lot more of a build up and nervousness felt while reading. When I watched this scene in class, I didn’t think Blanche showed any emotions nor was scared whatsoever right before she was raped in the movie. Also, in our present society, the rape scene would definitely be shown. Our society has changed drastically since this movie was made, and in today’s media a scene such as this would be expected to be shown in full detail. I found this humorous in a strange way that things like this are expected to be shown in movies because that is what the media wants to see. Times have changed a lot and I am not sure if it is for better or for worse. People want realness in film now and want everything to be revealed and shown, no matter how extreme it may be.

Blanche was portrayed as very sexual in the movie, and I didn’t think she was as sexual in the play. In the play, I felt that Blanche was more of a snooty person and thought she was better than everyone else. In the film she didn’t give this feeling to me as the viewer, but I felt that she was more into her sexual encounters with men. Stella was older looking than I had imagined while reading the play. I felt that Stella was older looking than Stanley and she was very high strung when it came to her relationship with Stanley. From watching their relationship despite the bad acting, the viewer could tell that Stanley had Stella wrapped around his finger. One similarity about Stella in the movie and the play was her weakness. It was upsetting to see someone drop everything for a person that doesn’t appreciate you half as much as you appreciate them and this was the way that Stella and Stanley’s relationship worked. I was very surprising to see how good of an actor Stanley’s character was, especially for his time. Stanley was better than I imagined in the movie than in the play and was very good at showing his true colors that were described in the play. Stanley did a good job of making Blanche feel smaller than a bug and stepping on her whenever he wished, and was abusive to Stella and embarrassed her whenever he wanted to.