Scan barcode
devontrevarrowflaherty's review against another edition
3.0
I can’t say that I enjoyed these plays too much. Ibsen and I diverge too much in our basic ideas of the world. What he calls bravery, I call cowardice, and vice versa. What he calls virtue, I call selfishness, and again vice versa. But I will try to assess them from a literary perspective, as well as a taste one, especially understanding that many of his morals are the morals of my own society.
Henrik Ibsen was a Norwegian man born in 1828, who, as Oxford World’s Classics puts it, was a playwright with “a period of sustained creative endeavor unparalleled in the history of modern theater and one which gave a whole new impetus and direction to the drama of the twentieth century.” Whew. His most famous play, “A Doll’s House,” was published in 1879, and began his career as a public menace, the object of outrage. His plays started the stage in Scandinavia, where they met with wide public debate, and in Germany the ending was (forced to be) re-wrote. It took until 1889 for the play to reach London, where its fame preceded it. Amid criticism and hostility were support and love, and Ibsen would continue as a public topic of polarized debate for his career. Ibsen knew his plays, their topics, and his “stark” treatment of them were inciting, but he sought truth at all cost, and dealt openly with subjects like commercial hypocrisy, religious intolerance, political expediency, conventional morality, and established authority (including man’s authority over woman). As time continued, he moved from the public sphere of conflict to a personal one, where his characters increasingly wrestled with temperamental and sexual incompatibility, magnetism, force, their unconscious mind, and dreams and visions. Overall, his writing was not only an impetus for social change, but also a game-changer in the arena of theater, where he excelled at using subtleties in language to an extent no one before had ever done before.
The “period of sustained creative endeavor unparalleled in the history of modern theater” began in 1877 and lasted until 1892. The four plays I read were pairs of plays at the beginning (almost) and end of this period. “A Doll’s House” was meant to culminate in “Ghosts,” and “Hedda Gabler” and “The Master Builder” were–as I have heard the phrase before–spiritual sisters.
I have been doing a lot of thinking about plays as literature, lately (which may be revisited when I review “Hamlet”). It is not quite adequete to read a play, exactly. I would think that in almost all circumstance, plays are truly realized when they are performed. However, as this is a book blog and plays are often included in lists of novels/great literature, I will review them as I would a novel. If I easily encounter performances of them, I will review those as well. Almost any decent play can become great in the hands of a masterful director, actors, and set artist, and likewise can fall flat without them.
As for Ibsen’s plays, I find his characters to be unbelievable, especially one of the shining stars of his fame and accomplishments, Nora Helmer. I guess what I find most obnoxious about these characters is the speed with which they do things, which could be blamed on the necessity of story and play-writing, or it could be that the characters do not show significant glimmers of what they are to suddenly and so surprisingly become. Nora, for example, is this flitting, domestic plaything (thus the title) for nine-tenths of the play, unable to see her own mistakes and the seriousness of the looming catastrophe ahead. Then, all of a sudden, she is a most advanced, thoughtful, determined individual, come to drastic acts with absolutely no passion and able to express her inmost feelings and will to her husband without missing a beat. I’ve been in arguments. They don’t go like that.
Ibsen has also said of his own work that his plays do not make statements, they just pose questions. It is unfortunate that authors can not know their own work or impact as well as they might like (me and everyone else included), but I don’t buy this assessment for a second. It is historically interesting that he considered his plays questions, but they are very clearly works of value statements and modes for societal change (which is exactly what they became.) With lines like “If I’m ever going to reach any understanding of myself and the things around me, I must learn to stand alone,” would you believe his plays are unbiased vignettes, wondering about human nature, and nothing more?
And finally, I have to come back to this matter of taste. Ibsen, as might have been necessary in someone pushing toward individualism and equality in the 1800s, makes selfishness the knight in shining armor of his plays. I can’t enjoy story lines where such individuality is honored above duty and community and a moral compass; it’s just not something I believe and so I find Ibsen’s heroes and heroines unpalatable. In some stories, that’s okay, but Ibsen’s plays are constructed around the ideal, a pleasurable inoculation of them, so it’s much harder than having, for example, a novel where one of the characters commits suicide (a favorite of his) and another runs away (another favorite), and the novel’s judgement remains unclear or backward from what the reader might have picked. Let’s face it; we expect the just desserts of characters to line up with our morals, or else we have this thing called dissatisfaction. Only a very talented author can make characters so complex that we are willing to stay judgement for love of the character or some other dearly held ideal: that’s when literature can bend our future ideas, not when we are presented with characters that shock us and then merrily get the opposite of what we think they deserve.
For all that, I enjoy the story lines of some of his plays, especially “A Doll’s House.” Others were much less dramatic and, I would go so far, boring (namely “Ghosts”). Again, it’s only historically interesting Ibsen thought “Ghosts” was the culmination of “A Doll’s House,” because “House” is clearly the masterpiece of the two, better in every way I can think of. It’s dramatic. It’s interesting. It has several different plots interweaving on one stage, in one set, in just a few virtual days.
“A Doll’s House”
Like I said, I really enjoy the story of this play, but I find the outcome less than satisfying. I was also astonished by how many lines and ideas have become part of our culture. To wit (just from Nora’s lines in the last scene): “I have never understood you, either–until tonight,” “I’ve been greatly wronged, Torvald,” “You two never loved me,” “It’s your fault that I’ve never made anything of my life,” “I thought I was [happy], but I wasn’t really,” “I must take steps to educate myself,” “That’s something I must do on my own,” “I must learn to stand alone,” “All I know is that this is necessary for me,” “I have another duty equally sacred … My duty to myself,” “I have to think things out for myself,” “I believe that first and foremost I am an individual,” I don’t really know what religion is,” and “But I can’t help it. I don’t love you anymore.” It’s probably difficult to remove ourselves enough from the twenty-first to the nineteenth century to see what kind of statements these were, back then, but it seems that I am still hearing the echoes of Ibsen every day, at all levels of our society. That is quite something.
“Miserable as I am, I’m quite ready to let things drag on as long as possible. All my patients are the dame. Even those with moral affliction are no different” (p18).
“Ah, Torvald, you are not the man to teach me to be a good wife to you” (p81).
“Ghosts”
Sorry, but I found this play to be a lot of talking with no purpose. Boring. I can barely remember what it wasn’t about.
“My dear lady, there are many occasions in life when one must rely on others. That’s the way of the world, and things are best that way. How else would society manage?” (p102).
“All of this demanding to by happy in life, it’s all part of this same wanton idea. What right have people to happiness? No, we have our duty to do, Mrs. Alving” (p113).
“Hedda Gabler”
Alright, back to interesting. Again, can’t agree with half of what Ibsen implies, but at least there is a vibrant plot(s) here. I imagine you could put on quite a show with this play.
“Because we men, you know, we’re not always so firm in our principles as we ought to be” (p237).
“I’d sooner die! / People say such things, but they never do them” (p262).
“One generally acquiesces in what is inevitable” (p262).
“The Master Builder”
A mildly interesting play with somewhat interesting characters. Funny that “The Master Builder” is considered the culmination of “Hedda Gabler,” when “Gabler” was far superior.
“It’s fantastic the number of devils there are in the world you never even see, Hilde!” (p323).
“Or if one had a really tough and vigorous conscience. So that one dared to do what one wanted” (p323).
In a way, reading Ibsen is like seeing ourselves in a cracked, Victorian mirror. If, indeed, these plays were just questions, then my questions are these: Is Nora the heroine? Or Kristine? And does “Hedda Gabler” have a hero at all?
*****
Despite plenty of online photos of productions of these plays, I found only one video I could get my hands on, which is the Anthony Hopkins version of A Doll’s House (1973). And actually, I really enjoyed it. I thought that what Hopkins did for Torvald was a sight to behold, making the viewer sympathetic to him. And Claire Bloom actually welds Nora’s flightiness and her final conclusions together. It’s really wonderful acting. My only disappointment was the age of Doctor Rank. The guy played it well, but he was much too old to create much sexual tension between him and Nora (although they managed it fairly well, anyhow). If you are interested in plays or Ibsen, I would recommend this one. (It doesn’t view like a modern movie, as much).
***REVIEW WRITTEN FOR THE STARVING ARTIST BLOG.
Henrik Ibsen was a Norwegian man born in 1828, who, as Oxford World’s Classics puts it, was a playwright with “a period of sustained creative endeavor unparalleled in the history of modern theater and one which gave a whole new impetus and direction to the drama of the twentieth century.” Whew. His most famous play, “A Doll’s House,” was published in 1879, and began his career as a public menace, the object of outrage. His plays started the stage in Scandinavia, where they met with wide public debate, and in Germany the ending was (forced to be) re-wrote. It took until 1889 for the play to reach London, where its fame preceded it. Amid criticism and hostility were support and love, and Ibsen would continue as a public topic of polarized debate for his career. Ibsen knew his plays, their topics, and his “stark” treatment of them were inciting, but he sought truth at all cost, and dealt openly with subjects like commercial hypocrisy, religious intolerance, political expediency, conventional morality, and established authority (including man’s authority over woman). As time continued, he moved from the public sphere of conflict to a personal one, where his characters increasingly wrestled with temperamental and sexual incompatibility, magnetism, force, their unconscious mind, and dreams and visions. Overall, his writing was not only an impetus for social change, but also a game-changer in the arena of theater, where he excelled at using subtleties in language to an extent no one before had ever done before.
The “period of sustained creative endeavor unparalleled in the history of modern theater” began in 1877 and lasted until 1892. The four plays I read were pairs of plays at the beginning (almost) and end of this period. “A Doll’s House” was meant to culminate in “Ghosts,” and “Hedda Gabler” and “The Master Builder” were–as I have heard the phrase before–spiritual sisters.
I have been doing a lot of thinking about plays as literature, lately (which may be revisited when I review “Hamlet”). It is not quite adequete to read a play, exactly. I would think that in almost all circumstance, plays are truly realized when they are performed. However, as this is a book blog and plays are often included in lists of novels/great literature, I will review them as I would a novel. If I easily encounter performances of them, I will review those as well. Almost any decent play can become great in the hands of a masterful director, actors, and set artist, and likewise can fall flat without them.
As for Ibsen’s plays, I find his characters to be unbelievable, especially one of the shining stars of his fame and accomplishments, Nora Helmer. I guess what I find most obnoxious about these characters is the speed with which they do things, which could be blamed on the necessity of story and play-writing, or it could be that the characters do not show significant glimmers of what they are to suddenly and so surprisingly become. Nora, for example, is this flitting, domestic plaything (thus the title) for nine-tenths of the play, unable to see her own mistakes and the seriousness of the looming catastrophe ahead. Then, all of a sudden, she is a most advanced, thoughtful, determined individual, come to drastic acts with absolutely no passion and able to express her inmost feelings and will to her husband without missing a beat. I’ve been in arguments. They don’t go like that.
Ibsen has also said of his own work that his plays do not make statements, they just pose questions. It is unfortunate that authors can not know their own work or impact as well as they might like (me and everyone else included), but I don’t buy this assessment for a second. It is historically interesting that he considered his plays questions, but they are very clearly works of value statements and modes for societal change (which is exactly what they became.) With lines like “If I’m ever going to reach any understanding of myself and the things around me, I must learn to stand alone,” would you believe his plays are unbiased vignettes, wondering about human nature, and nothing more?
And finally, I have to come back to this matter of taste. Ibsen, as might have been necessary in someone pushing toward individualism and equality in the 1800s, makes selfishness the knight in shining armor of his plays. I can’t enjoy story lines where such individuality is honored above duty and community and a moral compass; it’s just not something I believe and so I find Ibsen’s heroes and heroines unpalatable. In some stories, that’s okay, but Ibsen’s plays are constructed around the ideal, a pleasurable inoculation of them, so it’s much harder than having, for example, a novel where one of the characters commits suicide (a favorite of his) and another runs away (another favorite), and the novel’s judgement remains unclear or backward from what the reader might have picked. Let’s face it; we expect the just desserts of characters to line up with our morals, or else we have this thing called dissatisfaction. Only a very talented author can make characters so complex that we are willing to stay judgement for love of the character or some other dearly held ideal: that’s when literature can bend our future ideas, not when we are presented with characters that shock us and then merrily get the opposite of what we think they deserve.
For all that, I enjoy the story lines of some of his plays, especially “A Doll’s House.” Others were much less dramatic and, I would go so far, boring (namely “Ghosts”). Again, it’s only historically interesting Ibsen thought “Ghosts” was the culmination of “A Doll’s House,” because “House” is clearly the masterpiece of the two, better in every way I can think of. It’s dramatic. It’s interesting. It has several different plots interweaving on one stage, in one set, in just a few virtual days.
“A Doll’s House”
Like I said, I really enjoy the story of this play, but I find the outcome less than satisfying. I was also astonished by how many lines and ideas have become part of our culture. To wit (just from Nora’s lines in the last scene): “I have never understood you, either–until tonight,” “I’ve been greatly wronged, Torvald,” “You two never loved me,” “It’s your fault that I’ve never made anything of my life,” “I thought I was [happy], but I wasn’t really,” “I must take steps to educate myself,” “That’s something I must do on my own,” “I must learn to stand alone,” “All I know is that this is necessary for me,” “I have another duty equally sacred … My duty to myself,” “I have to think things out for myself,” “I believe that first and foremost I am an individual,” I don’t really know what religion is,” and “But I can’t help it. I don’t love you anymore.” It’s probably difficult to remove ourselves enough from the twenty-first to the nineteenth century to see what kind of statements these were, back then, but it seems that I am still hearing the echoes of Ibsen every day, at all levels of our society. That is quite something.
“Miserable as I am, I’m quite ready to let things drag on as long as possible. All my patients are the dame. Even those with moral affliction are no different” (p18).
“Ah, Torvald, you are not the man to teach me to be a good wife to you” (p81).
“Ghosts”
Sorry, but I found this play to be a lot of talking with no purpose. Boring. I can barely remember what it wasn’t about.
“My dear lady, there are many occasions in life when one must rely on others. That’s the way of the world, and things are best that way. How else would society manage?” (p102).
“All of this demanding to by happy in life, it’s all part of this same wanton idea. What right have people to happiness? No, we have our duty to do, Mrs. Alving” (p113).
“Hedda Gabler”
Alright, back to interesting. Again, can’t agree with half of what Ibsen implies, but at least there is a vibrant plot(s) here. I imagine you could put on quite a show with this play.
“Because we men, you know, we’re not always so firm in our principles as we ought to be” (p237).
“I’d sooner die! / People say such things, but they never do them” (p262).
“One generally acquiesces in what is inevitable” (p262).
“The Master Builder”
A mildly interesting play with somewhat interesting characters. Funny that “The Master Builder” is considered the culmination of “Hedda Gabler,” when “Gabler” was far superior.
“It’s fantastic the number of devils there are in the world you never even see, Hilde!” (p323).
“Or if one had a really tough and vigorous conscience. So that one dared to do what one wanted” (p323).
In a way, reading Ibsen is like seeing ourselves in a cracked, Victorian mirror. If, indeed, these plays were just questions, then my questions are these: Is Nora the heroine? Or Kristine? And does “Hedda Gabler” have a hero at all?
*****
Despite plenty of online photos of productions of these plays, I found only one video I could get my hands on, which is the Anthony Hopkins version of A Doll’s House (1973). And actually, I really enjoyed it. I thought that what Hopkins did for Torvald was a sight to behold, making the viewer sympathetic to him. And Claire Bloom actually welds Nora’s flightiness and her final conclusions together. It’s really wonderful acting. My only disappointment was the age of Doctor Rank. The guy played it well, but he was much too old to create much sexual tension between him and Nora (although they managed it fairly well, anyhow). If you are interested in plays or Ibsen, I would recommend this one. (It doesn’t view like a modern movie, as much).
***REVIEW WRITTEN FOR THE STARVING ARTIST BLOG.
willardk's review against another edition
3.0
Only read Hedda Gabler thus far. Plan to read A Doll House next.
alex109's review against another edition
challenging
dark
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
The Doll House explores early feminist ideas such as women forced to marry men they do not love and live lives they do not have
The Wild Duck speaks of 2 families swept up in delusion and deceit as they find themselves unraveling the ugly truth of their pathetic lives
Hedda Gabler a beautiful woman only married because no one else did. She’s married to a pathetic man child and is found near other equally unsavory Charecters, she feels she has no autonomy so she begins to manipulate them in her attempt to hold on to more power as she feels she has so little.
The Master Builder is about an older man trying to relive his youth and feel as if he can finally take his life by its reins, discusses their sad past and what occurred then and how they view it now
All and all they were interesting stories with fairly good enough writing.
The Wild Duck speaks of 2 families swept up in delusion and deceit as they find themselves unraveling the ugly truth of their pathetic lives
Hedda Gabler a beautiful woman only married because no one else did. She’s married to a pathetic man child and is found near other equally unsavory Charecters, she feels she has no autonomy so she begins to manipulate them in her attempt to hold on to more power as she feels she has so little.
The Master Builder is about an older man trying to relive his youth and feel as if he can finally take his life by its reins, discusses their sad past and what occurred then and how they view it now
All and all they were interesting stories with fairly good enough writing.
egg_carpark's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
lighthearted
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
balinmoreno's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
biolexicon's review against another edition
1.0
Ugh. Maybe this review is going to be less about Ibsen and more about me. But oh well. There's a certain naivete and simplicity that runs throughout this book that just turns me off. Maybe that's indicative of this historical time, it's less connected and people knew less about the world around them. I've just been reading a bunch of historical plays and that's a feeling that I'm stuck with and I can't relate to it at all.
Also, about halfway through I'm thinking to myself "I'm not enjoying this" but trying to push through so I can understand it and why it's so important to the literary canon. But, after thinking it through, I don't think it's right for me to finish. I tend to read classics and some of them are far less interesting than the criticism and meta writing done about them. The actual classic itself is a bore.
So, after a while, I was just like, if I'm so interested and motivated by the literary canon maybe I should just go read some criticism and drop the original text.
So that's what I’m doing. It could completely be a misguided step but it's honest, in my quest as an intellectual and a reader that's all I can demand of myself.
Also, about halfway through I'm thinking to myself "I'm not enjoying this" but trying to push through so I can understand it and why it's so important to the literary canon. But, after thinking it through, I don't think it's right for me to finish. I tend to read classics and some of them are far less interesting than the criticism and meta writing done about them. The actual classic itself is a bore.
So, after a while, I was just like, if I'm so interested and motivated by the literary canon maybe I should just go read some criticism and drop the original text.
So that's what I’m doing. It could completely be a misguided step but it's honest, in my quest as an intellectual and a reader that's all I can demand of myself.
casspro's review against another edition
3.0
I don't know how I made it through 4 years of undergrad in a theatre program without ever having to read "A Doll's House." I'd always heard the reference to the most shocking exit in modern playwrighting, but I can now place it in its true context. Nora is a bit cloying, what with her whole performing squirrell routine, but she's got cajones.
I orginially got this collection for an acting class. I was assigned the scene in "An Enemy of the People" when Petra stands up to Hovstad about the book he needs translating and ultimately shames him for failing to stand behind a cause. It's a great political play with some feisty characters. An unexpected find.
"The Wild Duck" is my least favorite. A family of photographers are keeping a wild duck in their attic, which is I'm sure is another bird-in-a-cage metaphor. The pace is very slow compared to the other plays in the collection. But, three out of four ain't bad.
I orginially got this collection for an acting class. I was assigned the scene in "An Enemy of the People" when Petra stands up to Hovstad about the book he needs translating and ultimately shames him for failing to stand behind a cause. It's a great political play with some feisty characters. An unexpected find.
"The Wild Duck" is my least favorite. A family of photographers are keeping a wild duck in their attic, which is I'm sure is another bird-in-a-cage metaphor. The pace is very slow compared to the other plays in the collection. But, three out of four ain't bad.
sebds3036's review against another edition
5.0
Ibsen is ridiculously good at writing. Every character he creates has motive for their actions, and half of them you can't help hate from first sight because of how disgustingly prideful, scornful or dumb they are. Yet the wonderful thing about Ibsen is that in less than 100 pages and about four acts your perception of a character will utterly change.
Ibsen writes what is called the problem play, a convention of writing he created based on the "well-made play." Ibsen thus created a landing for modern literature. His work often reminds me of a sitcom, as the problems are simple yet delicately intertwined between many of the characters he creates. He is hands down one of the best in creating a scene that is real. Best of all, most of his plays in this series happen in one place, or one room, so you really get to know one setting and how it affects each of the characters.
A Doll's House is about Nora, married to Torvald Helmer, a woman who is decidedly happy about her life, yet is completely trapped in her past. Her character seems stupid flighty whiny and needy. When two characters form her past reappear Mrs. Linde and Krogstad who both vie for a position within the Helmer's life, Nora is forced to become a new person in an attempt to keep her life as it is, while it spirals out of control.
The Wild Duck follows the story of the Ekdal family, seemingly happy and satisfied with life. But when an old friend Gregers Werle appears, inviting Halmar Ekdal to join a party at his father's house, the hidden past of Gina Ekdal, Halmar's wife and their daughter Hedvig soon emerge. It is then that I came to dislike Halmar, for his blindness as well as his selfish and foolish actions. In this play familial ties plays a great role as well as the idea of sacrificing.
In Hedda Gabler, newlyweds Hedda and George Tesman arrive at their new house, dominated by a portrait of the late General Gabler, as well as furnishings depicting an arosticratic household. Yet Tesman is a bourgeois scholar attempting to attain professorship, to support Hedda his pregnant wife, who at first glace is a sour, frigid woman whow ants nothing to do with the Tesmans. As friends and ghosts from the past come visit Hedda is torn bewteen her duty to society and keeping up her farce of a marriage with Tesman or letting herself be once again affected by the debauched and Eilert Lovborg, who is seemingly 'rehabilitated' by Thea Elvstead, a former flame of Tesman. When Judge Brack inserts himself into the picture, slimy and propositioning Hedda, the situation goes awry. Throw in some guns, a stove, a manuscript, and a death motif associated with babies and you are in for a wild journey!
In the Master Builder, Mr. Solness, the master builder attempts to keep his position as the best builder in town by squashing the Brovik family, making them work for him. By seducing Kaja, Ragnar Brovik's betrothed Solness plans for the future as he prepares to move into a new home with his wife Aline, built where her family home once stood. When Miss Hilda appears in Solness' life, claiming that he owes a debt to her, his plans begin to go awry as she seduces him with her imagination.
Ibsen writes what is called the problem play, a convention of writing he created based on the "well-made play." Ibsen thus created a landing for modern literature. His work often reminds me of a sitcom, as the problems are simple yet delicately intertwined between many of the characters he creates. He is hands down one of the best in creating a scene that is real. Best of all, most of his plays in this series happen in one place, or one room, so you really get to know one setting and how it affects each of the characters.
A Doll's House is about Nora, married to Torvald Helmer, a woman who is decidedly happy about her life, yet is completely trapped in her past. Her character seems stupid flighty whiny and needy. When two characters form her past reappear Mrs. Linde and Krogstad who both vie for a position within the Helmer's life, Nora is forced to become a new person in an attempt to keep her life as it is, while it spirals out of control.
The Wild Duck follows the story of the Ekdal family, seemingly happy and satisfied with life. But when an old friend Gregers Werle appears, inviting Halmar Ekdal to join a party at his father's house, the hidden past of Gina Ekdal, Halmar's wife and their daughter Hedvig soon emerge. It is then that I came to dislike Halmar, for his blindness as well as his selfish and foolish actions. In this play familial ties plays a great role as well as the idea of sacrificing.
In Hedda Gabler, newlyweds Hedda and George Tesman arrive at their new house, dominated by a portrait of the late General Gabler, as well as furnishings depicting an arosticratic household. Yet Tesman is a bourgeois scholar attempting to attain professorship, to support Hedda his pregnant wife, who at first glace is a sour, frigid woman whow ants nothing to do with the Tesmans. As friends and ghosts from the past come visit Hedda is torn bewteen her duty to society and keeping up her farce of a marriage with Tesman or letting herself be once again affected by the debauched and Eilert Lovborg, who is seemingly 'rehabilitated' by Thea Elvstead, a former flame of Tesman. When Judge Brack inserts himself into the picture, slimy and propositioning Hedda, the situation goes awry. Throw in some guns, a stove, a manuscript, and a death motif associated with babies and you are in for a wild journey!
In the Master Builder, Mr. Solness, the master builder attempts to keep his position as the best builder in town by squashing the Brovik family, making them work for him. By seducing Kaja, Ragnar Brovik's betrothed Solness plans for the future as he prepares to move into a new home with his wife Aline, built where her family home once stood. When Miss Hilda appears in Solness' life, claiming that he owes a debt to her, his plans begin to go awry as she seduces him with her imagination.
almapietri's review against another edition
3.0
I only read "A Doll's House." It isn't something I would choose to read myself, but it was still enjoyable.