Hedda Gabler (by Henrik Ibsen)
The year: 1890; the country: Norway. Hedda Gabler returns from her honeymoon to a house and life she despises, with a husband for whom she has no respect. Into this unhappy home bring two men who would become her lover – one an upstanding judge, and the other a brilliant but dissolute man with a scandalous past.
Just a word of warning about Hedda. You probably won’t like her, but she’s a fascinating literary creation. She’s more complicated than you think (if the responses of earlier classes are any indicator). The actress Kate Burton called Hedda “a female Hamlet.” I’m not sure I‘d go that far, but she’s more than just a “mean girl“. There are reasons for everything she does, (although sometimes they are dark even to her). Take the “bonnet incident”. You can take her at face value when she tells Judge Brack that she doesn’t know why she does things like that.
But for a key to understanding Hedda look closely at the nature of her relationship with Lovborg — especially in the past. (Hint: they were never physically intimate.) What Hedda wanted from the relationship and what Lovborg wanted were too vastly different things. Another key is when Hedda talks about people staring at her legs (or ankles, in one translation), so she refuses to get off the train. She seems tough and in control, but in reality she's quite vulnerable.
Oh -- and shouldn't this play be called Hedda Tesman?
You can read it online here, or here. Or listen to it here. Speak Polish? Watch it here. Or even in English, here. (Is that cheating? A little bit. But it's a play; it's meant to be watched. If you read and watched, that would be okay.) It's free or cheap ($0.99) on Kindle. But I'd say the best way is to get a copy (maybe from a used book store, if there are any of those still around -- so that you can write in it as you read!
[Note: not to be confused with Heddatron, a play where "Jane Gordon, a very depressed and very pregnant Michigan housewife, finds herself kidnapped by a clan of renegade sentient robots and whisked away to the jungles of South America where she is forced to perform the title role in a mechanical version of Hedda Gabler."]
Just a word of warning about Hedda. You probably won’t like her, but she’s a fascinating literary creation. She’s more complicated than you think (if the responses of earlier classes are any indicator). The actress Kate Burton called Hedda “a female Hamlet.” I’m not sure I‘d go that far, but she’s more than just a “mean girl“. There are reasons for everything she does, (although sometimes they are dark even to her). Take the “bonnet incident”. You can take her at face value when she tells Judge Brack that she doesn’t know why she does things like that.
But for a key to understanding Hedda look closely at the nature of her relationship with Lovborg — especially in the past. (Hint: they were never physically intimate.) What Hedda wanted from the relationship and what Lovborg wanted were too vastly different things. Another key is when Hedda talks about people staring at her legs (or ankles, in one translation), so she refuses to get off the train. She seems tough and in control, but in reality she's quite vulnerable.
Oh -- and shouldn't this play be called Hedda Tesman?
You can read it online here, or here. Or listen to it here. Speak Polish? Watch it here. Or even in English, here. (Is that cheating? A little bit. But it's a play; it's meant to be watched. If you read and watched, that would be okay.) It's free or cheap ($0.99) on Kindle. But I'd say the best way is to get a copy (maybe from a used book store, if there are any of those still around -- so that you can write in it as you read!
[Note: not to be confused with Heddatron, a play where "Jane Gordon, a very depressed and very pregnant Michigan housewife, finds herself kidnapped by a clan of renegade sentient robots and whisked away to the jungles of South America where she is forced to perform the title role in a mechanical version of Hedda Gabler."]
Tips for Reading a Play
ReplyDeleteI have a couple of quotations from an article by Dan Kois about “the deep and unique pleasure of reading plays”.
1) “So reading ~The Flick~, I acted in it and directed it in my head.”
2) “Already I was envisioning the set and casting the roles from the roster of human beings, actors, and non-actors in my head.”
Try that. Cast the characters. Give them direction. (Ibsen does a little of that, with his stage directions, but you can do more.) Visualize it. Bring it to life.
3) “In fact what I am doing in that moment is acting. I may be acting silently inside my head, but in that instant, I’m an actor.”
Play all the parts. You’re Hedda, who feels so constrained and restricted by her society that she’s about to jump out of her skin – but at the same time is totally aware of her reputation.
4) “This mix of precision and shagginess epitomizes ~The Flick~, in which Baker is always tracking the minute-by-minute emotional evolution of its three screwed-up characters.”
5) “Reading Avery’s lines makes me inhabit him rather than look at him from the outside. Reading ~The Flick~ reminded me of the importance of stories about people on the economic and emotional margins.”
The characters in ~Hedda~ are not all likeable. They are flawed human beings – like us – doing their best to get by. Give ‘em some slack. Resist the temptation to be judgmental.
One of the things I want to work on this year is to help strengthen your sense of empathy. In this angry and divided time in which, we need to try to empathize.
[Quotations taken from this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/10/annie_baker_s_the_flick_and_the_joy_of_reading_plays.html ]
Before You Start Hating on Hedda. . .
ReplyDeleteThe play takes place in 1890 in Kristiana, Norway. (It’s called Oslo, now, but from 1877 – 1925, it was Kristiana.) Hedda Gabler is from a well-to-do family, but she is ~not~ well to do. So there’s a certain standard of living that she has internalized. She can’t imagine falling out of that strata of society.
There’s a certain unwritten code of behavior for persons of her class. And another for female persons of her class. Hedda finds these terribly constricting, and would love to break out – but deep down she doesn’t dare. She’s seems to have been raised by her father (there’s no mention that I can recall of her mother), so within the household her eccentricities were indulged. But outside. . . no, never.
She’s recently married. She was approaching thirty. A spinster. It was past time to get married. So she accepted Tesman’s proposal. Did she ever love him? No. To her, it was better that way.
Anyway, I’m sure some of you can relate to her. She lives a life within boundaries that others have set for. She’d love to break out and go wild – discover life! – but she can’t bear what people would say. So she goes on. Miserable.
Hi, everyone! I started reading the play and was wondering about the first conversation between Hedda and Thea. When they are talking about how Thea has left her husband, Hedda is shocked and appalled, both by the risk she has taken and by her dismissal of others’ perceptions of her. I’m not sure whether Hedda just hasn’t examined her own life enough yet to really understand what being trapped in a marriage feels like, or whether she is thinking about her own marriage and secretly admires Thea’s refusal to accept discontent in her life. What did you guys think about this interaction?
ReplyDelete-Kenna Hurtuk
Hi Kenna! I found this interaction very interesting as well. I think a lot of Hedda's shock comes from the fact that she is very concerned with her own image in society, so it is quite strange to her that someone doesn't care at all. For instance, we often see Hedda drawing the curtains (especially at the end), which symbolizes her desire to conceal her true self from society, and escape any possible scandal. When reading this I immediately thought of Blanche's paper lantern in "A Streetcar named Desire", as Blanche ultimately tried to hide herself and her past.
DeleteI also think Hedda is somewhat jealous of Thea's "relationship" with Eilert, considering her past with him. When Thea leaves her husband, Hedda must realize that she is trying to be happy with him, which probably triggers her reaction as well.
I think the first act sets up Hedda as a main character pretty well, especially in the context of her and Mrs. Elvsted's interactions. Kenna's observation of Hedda ironically judging Thea's relationship with her husband is a great example. Another odd interaction I noticed was when Hedda insists on becoming BFF's with Thea even though she bullied her in school and forgot her name. This shows Hedda as an individual who is conflicted on how she wants to portray herself in society. Thanks for getting the ball rolling Kenna & Allyse
DeleteI also thought that the interaction where Hedda wanted to BFF's with Thea was an interesting one, but instead of thinking it showed her as a person conflicted with how she wanted to be portrayed I thought it showed her more to be a person willing to manipulate others for personal gain. Throughout the play we learn that she loves gossip, and this was shown in this first interaction as her kindness was simply a facade built up in hopes of getting the latest scoop.
Delete-Peighton Stirt
Hi Kenna! I agree with your observation that Hedda may admire Thea for her ability to ignore the thoughts of others and do what she wants to do as an individual. This helps to set up her relationship with Lovborg. She also admires his ability in his past life to do whatever he wants even if it means being an alcoholic and making a fool of himself. She believes its the right way to live because he never has to live a boring, tedious life. Following his reformation, she encourages him to drink and party again because she herself is trapped in a boring, tedious life with Tesman. She is able to live through him. In both situations, her admiration and longing for individuality are evident.
Delete-Jack Riggott
Delete- Kelly Mjos
ReplyDeleteHi Kelly, I think you’re right that Hedda’s first interaction with Thea revealed a lot about her as a person. I couldn’t help but think that she seemed really manipulative and controlling of Thea. She knows that Thea is afraid of her from school and used that fear to force her “friendship” on Thea. Hedda seems extremely willing to mess with people’s emotions to get what she wants. She also seems to enjoy having control over others. I found both of these characteristics offputting, but upon finishing the end of the play I understand that Hedda acts like this to try and compensate for how lost she is in her own life.
Delete-Caitlin Breslin
Hi Caitlin,
DeleteI really liked how you said that Hedda manipulates others to compensate for how lost she is. Throughout the play, I definitely noticed a theme about control. By persuading others to do what she wants, she is able to have control over them even though she does not feel like she has control over her own life. She feels stuck in an unsatisfying marriage and is surrounded by people who she views as beneath her. It is not an ideal situation.
However, Hedda gets what she wants through manipulation. She finds out all about Thea's relationship, Eilert's thoughts, and what happened to Eilert at the party. This was very interesting to me because Hedda wants to avoid scandal, but at the same time, she wants to know every bit of drama that is taking place around her.
At the end of the play, Hedda finally takes control over her own life by ending it. What drives her to do so is the control that Brack now has over her because he knows it was her pistol that killed Eilert. She had been contemplating suicide for a while, but this seems to be the last straw for her.
Hedda wants to be in control, and it is being under the control of others that kills her.
Hi, Madalyn! I agree that Hedda is ultimately defeated because she feels helpless and out of control. I thought that when she burned Eilert’s book, she was trying to destroy something that was constructed meticulously and with extreme care- just like her marriage was. She rejected Eilert out of concern for her societal status, but she eventually became bored and unsatisfied with her routine life as a housewife. I think that by destroying the book, Hedda was trying to accomplish what she had so far been unable to do with her own life. I think she wanted desperately to dismantle the life she’d created, but she was too afraid of the consequences to empower herself.
Delete-Kenna Hurtuk
Hi Kenna! I really liked how you suggested that the book and her marriage were very similar, and I agree with you 100%. I also thought that it was interesting that when she burnt the book she mentioned Thea's name and I think that this was stemming over the jealousy she had for her as Thea was able to get away from the marriage that she hated and was able to go towards the person who she truly longed to be with unlike Hedda.
Delete-Peighton Stirt
Hi Kenna and Madalyn,
DeleteI think that Hedda is indeed in control, not out of it. I think she is fully conscious of the actions she is taking and the measures in which she is doing it. Whether it be burning the book, giving Eilert he pistol, or killing herself. She could have taken other measures, but the sense that she had to decide every outcome in her life at this point, That she couldn't leave anything up to chance, led to her downfall and death. Her controlling nd meddling was all her choice of how to handle the situation.
-Kevin Shorey
Hi everyone,
DeleteI think that the fact that Hedda feels a real need for control makes the ending of this play all the more tragic--she has had any element of control over the lives of others and herself stripped from her. She tries to control the final fate of Lovborg by giving him one of her pistols, with hopes that he will end his own life beautifully. Unfortunately for Hedda, it is revealed that Lovborg did not have any part in his own death; he was killed in Mademoiselle Diana's boudoir. Another element detailing the loss of Hedda's control is George's decision to devote his life to the recreation of Lovborg's book. She has lost control over her husband's career, especially considering the fact that she had wished to push him into politics. In addition, Hedda loses control over her own fate when Brack blackmails her: he will tell the police that the gun found on Lovborg's person is hers unless she bends to his will. In these ways, Hedda has lost the only thing which is important to her: control. The taking of her own life is a highly tragic end, as it is the only way in which she can regain some of this lost control.
Hi Meghan,
DeleteI agree that Hedda losing control of the people around her and the desire for power she feels could have lead to her suicide. Hedda's loss of power removed her meaning in life and she needed to regain control in any way she could. Killing herself was the only way to take back control without risk of failing. This was a very tragic ending, but I also think that the blackmail could have caused her suicide because she had lost control of her own life at that point and needed to take it back.
_Brennan Nick
Hey all,
DeleteI also am in agreement with all of you about the idea that Hedda was forced to "regain" control by killing herself. However, I believe that she was misguided, and if she had wanted to truly regain her control she would have a much harder time as she would have to dig deep and perhaps find something to blackmail Brack. And for all we know, Hedda is used to having things her way, as she's very manipulative. So I think she killed herself as it was the option that required no work, and would satisfy her desire for control.
Hey guys! Throughout the acts of the play it becomes very apparent that George Tesman is very close to his Aunt Rina and Aunt Juliana, but what does that add to the play? Does George being raised by two women affect who he is? What does Aunt Rina being sick and dying signify? Sorry about the multiple questions, but the aunts just seem like an afterthought in the play to me.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Carneiro
Hi Alyssa! I feel that George’s interaction with his aunts reveals to the reader a facet of his character: selflessness. Throughout the play, he is quite attentive to his aunts and often visits to check in on them. These two women most likely taught him to be selfless from a young age, leading by example. Both Juliana and Rina Tesman make sacrifices for others. In addition to raising him, his Aunt Juliana gives a mortgage on her (and her sister’s) annuity in order to support him financially. Not to mention how she already has to take care of her sister, who is very ill. Aunt Rina herself demonstrates selflessness as she embroiders slippers for George while bedridden and basically on her deathbed. I believe that George’s selflessness is related to his constant desire to please Hedda, mostly by materialistic means. He finances their expensive honeymoon in order to satisfy her. He even chooses their new house based off of a single comment she had made about how “she’d like to live in a house like this one day”. George repeatedly goes out of his way to please her in any way he can.
DeleteHi Alyssa! In a basic overview of the plot, the aunts serve as a convenient tool to explain Tesman's absences from the house, most notably in the scene where Hedda gets the chance to burn the manuscript. More than a basic plot tool, thought, they contribute to the character development of Tesman and Hedda. I agree with Kelsey that Isben uses the aunts to reveal pieces of Tesman's character that would otherwise remain hidden, and I also think that he uses them to contrast Tesman and Hedda. Tesman has a life outside of the little room in their house, and other people that he has genuine mutual connections with. Though his interactions with his Aunt Juliana and his grief over Aunt Rina, we see his capacity for love. It seems like Hedda's relationships with everyone she encounters, even her friends like Brack and Lovborg, are shallower, and we see her attempts to manipulate them rather than interact with them. Her emotions are buried much deeper below the surface than Tesman's which seems to be what brings her to her breaking point. The aunts were used to show the importance of healthy, honest relationships in a person's life.
Delete-Kalina Bonofiglio
DeleteHi Kalina! I agree that the aunts serve as a way to contrast Hedda and Tesman. Their presence and their suffering expose Tesman's selflessness and capacity for love, as opposed to Hedda's inability to show love or compassion for others. Tesman treats Aunt Julia like his own mother, and loves her with all his might. He visits her and Aunt Rina frequently and is always concerned with their wellbeing. He wants to make sure Aunt Julia is treated kindly by Hedda and accepts Aunt Julia's gifts (ex: the slippers) with joy and love. He visits Aunt Rina when she is ill and mourns with Aunt Julia after Aunt Rina's death. Hedda, meanwhile, is in general a cold person. She purposely insults Aunt Julia to her face without just cause, calling her new and beautiful bonnet "old" and pretends to be ashamed of its presence, exclaiming, "Just fancy, if any one should come in and see it" (Ibsen 26). She not only has no love for her husband (as she admits to both Judge Brack and Lovborg), but also appears to be entirely indifferent to his career, his successes, and his effort as a husband. She doesn't even try to entertain her husband by taking an interest his work. Even though Tesman spends the entire play trying to do everything he can for Hedda, she responds with sheer ungratefulness. When Tesman fears of losing his job to Lovborg, Hedda does not act with any compassion, only replying that "there will be a sort of sporting interest in that" (Ibsen 51). The presence of the aunts in the play provides yet another example of Tesman's capacity for love, which contrasts with Hedda's reserved, stony, and frigid personality.
DeleteGavin Rublewski
Hi Gavin and Kalina! I thought it was a very interesting point that both of you made regarding how the relationships of the aunts contrasted that of Hedda and Tesman. In addition to everything that was stated earlier I also think it was used as character development in Hedda directly as it showed her lack of compassion when Aunt Rina was on her death bed and she said she didnt want to see death and therefore stayed home. I also think it was used in order to further the fact that there were no true emotions of love for Tesman in their relationship as there were countless times where he asked her to either see his Aunt of kiss her cheek and she regarded them as people that were simply beneath her even though anyone could see that they meant the world to Tesman. This was also seen once again when he asked her to go with him to the funeral, and even though he had tears in his eyes and was obviously in pain she declined simply because she did not want to see death.
Delete-Peighton Stirt
Hello. The interactions between Tesman and his aunts also shows how ungrateful Hedda is. He is fully capable of loving her just as much but she refused to return that love or even acknowledge it. All the kindness he gives her can't even get him support when he is nervous about losing his job to Lovborg. Instead of comforting her husband, who cherishes her, she saw it as potential for entertainment. This cold, bitter behavior is made worse by the fact that we see Tesman's kindness on display by taking care of is aunts. With them out of the picture Hedda's behavior might not have seemed as bad.
DeleteMichael Angers
Hello all,
DeleteYou all make great points regarding the role of Tesman's aunts in the play. I believe, as many of you said, that Hedda's interactions with the aunts opposed to Tesman's interactions with them reveal contrasting characteristics of the two. As shown by these interactions, Hedda is very judgemental and apathetic, while Tesman is more selfless. Another point of contrast that I thought worth mentioning is the difference between how Tesman and Hedda were raised. In the play, we learn very little about Hedda's past except that her father was a military general. Hedda had a primarily male dominated and possibly a stricter childhood, while Tesman was raised by compassionate women who did not hesitate to spoil him. I think that the difference in the family background provides an explanation for the varying behaviors of the couple. Tesman mirrors the selflessness of his aunts in providing for Hedda, while Hedda is remarkably cold towards the Tesmans. If anything, this difference in upbringing between the two makes for an unusual dynamic.
Olivia Cayward says:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the play, I found it odd that the setting for the whole plot was one room. But, instead of finding it boring, I actually found it quite interesting. It really emphasized how bored Hedda was, since her whole new life practically took place in that one room. The setting also made me realize just how much goes on in one room. I had never thought about all of the memories, moments, and secrets that take place in rooms at my own house, and I doubt many others have either. When I think about life moments I think about all the grand and intriguing places I’ve been to, not a room in my house. Not to mention so much more happens when I’m not present in the rooms. Life continues even when I’m not there. This play made me think about all of those moments and all the life that goes on in seemingly insignificant settings, such as a simple room.
My other comment is a question: what does Hedda mean when she talks about “vine-leaves” in Eilert’s hair?”
Hi Olivia,
DeleteI think you made a very interesting point about the setting. I did not think much of it besides how boring it must have been for Hedda to be trapped in that one room and your comment really opened my eyes to how we deal with those sort of things. I like how you connected it your own life and it helped me to realize how much we truly miss when we aren't home and what goes on in such a common place, like a living room. It really opened my eyes to how fast moving our society has become and how much we value memories made in extravagant places versus the lack of attention put on the secrets and memories shared in such common places. As for the vine leaves I was also curious as to what that meant.
Hi Olivia and Sydney,
DeleteYour comments about the setting definitely gave me a new perspective on the play. I did not think too much about it as I was reading, but after reflecting on it, I realized how important the limited setting is. It very clearly demonstrates how trapped Hedda feels in her marriage and her life, and it shows how much can happen in just a single room.
Now, about the vine leaves: as soon as they were mentioned, I pictured a Greek god wearing a crown of leaves. Greek gods were highly romanticized and seen as larger-than-life, and that is how Hedda views Eilert. She admires him and his courageousness, even though it is the kind of courageousness that most people frown upon. Before Thea reformed him, he was free and did not conform to societal expectations. Also, she admires that he seems to be of a higher class than her husband and is making more progress in their field than him, too.
By picturing Eilert with vine leaves in his hair, she is seeing him as more beautiful than he already is. This longing for beauty is also why she tries to persuade him to shoot himself in the temple. She believes it will be a beautiful and poetic death. It also explains why she is so upset when his death did not play out the way she imagined it.
Did anyone else have any other ideas as to what the vine leaves might represent?
Hi Olivia, Sydney, and Madalyn,
DeleteThe vine leaves are a reference to Eilert's alcoholism. When Hedda tells Mrs. Elvsted that Lovborg will return "with vine-leaves in his hair" (Ibsen 93), she is saying that Eilert will return to the house drunk, and his old habit will come back to haunt him and put an end to the new life that Mrs. Elvsted has led him into. The vine leaves refer to the ingredients used to make wine. Additionally, Hedda makes this remark in a way that expresses her connection with Lovborg's drinking and beauty. She sees his drinking as a way for him to break free of Mrs. Elvsted's influence on him.
Gavin Rublewski
Hi Olivia!
DeleteI too was interested by the compact and claustrophobic nature of the one room setting. I connected this with, similar to the all the characters being physically kept close to one another, Hedda was emotionally close with many characters, such as Mrs. Elvsted, Judge Brack, and most obviously Eilert. This of course was potentially scandalous and damaging to her reputation, so she attempted to distance herself emotionally by refusing to see Judge Brack and burning Eilert's manuscript in an attempt to damage his image in her mind. Also, she physically distanced herself as well, as she left the main room and its occupants mere minutes before she killed herself. Lastly, I believe her obsession with the vine leaves in Eilert's hair was an attempt to romanticize him and paint him as a sort of Romeo so she would be more comfortable talking to him, having normalized and glamorized his appearance.
Casey Bowden
Hi all!
DeleteI thought it was very interesting that Ibsen decided to use one room for the whole play. It tends to symbolize the marriage that Hedda is in. The room seems to point to a feeling of misery that Hedda is feeling. Like most of you said, it is a sort of confinement that Hedda is feeling. The room truly represents her inside feelings and thoughts about her marriage.
I agree with Gavin that the vine-leaves are a symbol to his drunkenness when he returns home. It seems as though it is an addiction that he is wrapping himself up in and cannot untangle himself out of. That is where the vine-leaves come in, considering vines wrap themselves around things and get stuck. It is hard to get out of them
Hi all,
DeleteI believe that both Madalyn and Gavin's interpretations regarding the significance of the vine-leaves are correct. In
this play, each reference to Lovborg with vine-leaves in his hair reminds me of the Greek god Dionysus. Dionysus, often depicted with vines in his hair, is the god of wine as well as madness and ecstasy. Hedda admires Lovborg for his freedom, in that he is able to live his life alone while still having the companionship of multiple women. She continually attempts to get him to drink alcohol because she knows that it will push him into a state of madness--a state in which she greatly admires him.
Hedda often wishes to see Lovborg with "vine-leaves in his hair."I believe that this is a direct reference to the god Dionysus because Hedda does not truly admire Lovborg's drunkenness, but the traits that accompany him in this state: his wild freedom and his uncaring joy.
Hello all,
DeleteI agree with your interpretations of the symbolic purpose of the vine leaves. Hedda views Lovborg's reformed way of life as beautiful. The imagery of the vine leaves in his hair just help to enhance this beauty. They also serve as a sort of test for Lovborg. When he drinks at the party and goes back to his old ways he loses the beauty and Hedda is forced to find a new way of finding beauty in him. Since he has lost all beauty in life, she turns towards his death and encourages a "beautiful" suicide.
Hey class,
DeleteI believe the setting was meant to be just her room as it explains why Hedda is so depressed. Being isolated in that room helps us realize why Hedda turned to being manipulative, it might have been her only way to "enjoy" life. As for the vine-leaves meaning, I agree with Gavin's answer the most. She sees the beauty associated with the freedom that Lovborg entails while drunk, not just him in his drunken state.
Hello all,
DeleteI was intrigued when learning about the setting, however in hindsight, I believe that the play taking place in only one room explains why Hedda is the way that she is. I now understand her frustration in her struggles to find the "beauty" that she was looking for, and I believe that her proposed "beautiful suicide" would be the escape that she had been looking for. I do however find a certain beauty in the idea of the play only having one room. So much can truly occur in a room, but when you are forced to be confined, you may struggle to find the beauty in the manner that Hedda did.
-Ryan Cyr
I agree with what Allyse said about Hedda being greatly concerned with how others view her in society. She was brought up in a wealthy family and her father, a general, was highly revered. This sets the status quo for her, and is most likely the only reason she marries George. He is a man of high social class who is capable of affording an extravagant home, servants, and anything else Hedda asks for. By marrying him, she solidifies her reputation as a sophisticated aristocrat. I did observe, however, her aspiration to also be independent and take risks. That’s why she finds Lovborg so intriguing, despite his poor reputation. I believe that she ultimately represses this desire, and sticks with the boring yet reputable George Tesman, in order to maintain her “proper” aristocratic lifestyle. Hedda is afraid of the scandal that might develop, so she refuses Lovborg.
ReplyDeleteEven though she doesn’t allow herself to have him, she decides that no one else may have him either. Not only is this selfish, but it demonstrates her controlling nature. She begins to slowly rip apart Lovborg’s life, starting with his manuscript. I thought of it like a snowball effect of destruction. She first destroys his life’s work, then his relationship with Thea. When Lovborg suggests that he’s going to commit suicide, she doesn’t stop him. Instead, she gives him a pistol and tells him to do it “beautifully” (Because that’s what friends do, right?). All of this eventually leads to her own suicide because she is too cowardly to deal with scandal. Are there any other thoughts on Hedda’s suicide?
Hi Kelsey,
DeleteAs I mentioned earlier I noticed that Hedda's death was behind the curtains in the inner room. And as you mentioned, her suicide is majorly a result of her being too cowardly to deal with her own scandal. I think Ibsen perfectly used the curtains as a symbol during her death. She couldn't deal with being caught for supplying Lovborg a pistol, so she chose to die "beautifully" herself. The curtains act as a way to conceal herself from society, and it is therefore very fitting that she died behind them in order to escape the ridicule and torture she could possibly face.
In addition, I couldn't help but feel bad for Tessman, as I'm sure many others did. Tessman is ready to devote the remainder of his life to piecing back together Lovborg's manuscript, and in the midst of it all he loses his wife. It was hard for me to tell how George really felt about Hedda, but in any event, it has to be heart-breaking for him to lose his wife so tragically.
Hi Kelsey and Allyse,
DeleteI also found her suicide in many ways to be cowardly. As you both mentioned, that was her only option to avoid dealing with scandal and that's what she chose. The whole play is centered around the social aspects of life in their time. Hedda desires a lot of the things that, socially, she can't have.
Although I agree that this was her way of taking the easy way out so-to-speak, I also think it was her telling society that she, too, can do something scandalous. After all, suicide is frowned upon. In a way, I think this was her defying society and its standards.
Hi Monique, Allyse, and Kelsey!
DeleteI also believe Hedda’s suicide is cowardly. When Brack began to blackmail Hedda at the end of the play, she responded with "Death rather than that." This foreshadowed her death later on in the play. She would rather die than let Brack have control over her. It also reveals how she thinks lightly of death. Dying “beautifully” is more honorable than living a life in shame.
Hedda had hoped for Eilert to shoot himself in the temple because that is a “beautiful” way to die. Much to her disappointment, the reality of his death did not meet those expectations. However, Hedda herself was able to die the death of her dreams, shooting herself “beautifully” in the temple.
Monique had mentioned that Hedda’s suicide could be an act of defiance. That is a great observation. I never thought of that before. Thinking back, Hedda always wanted to escape from social norms but never found the courage to. She admired Eilert because he was not afraid to be a deviant. Hedda lived her entire life conforming to social norms. Maybe suicide was her way of going against society’s expectations.
-Beryl Chen
Hey Kelsey, Allyse, Monique, and Beryl,
DeleteI liked how you guys interpreted Hedda's death as a way to escape conformity. I agree that Hedda died in order to escape her scandal, but I also saw it as her way of taking control of her own life. Hedda did things, such as marrying a man she doesn't truly love because of status, just because she was raised in a wealthy family and had expectations to uphold her reputation. Like the setting of the room suggests, Hedda was trapped. She was trapped in expectations and found herself caught up in a scandal. I see the fact that she died behind the curtains and not in the room as a symbol for her escape of expectations and a way for her to claim her life back by at least being able control how she dies.
Hope everyone's summer is going well!
DeleteAs I was reading through these posts about Hedda's death and how it is seen, I particularly agree with one of Beryl's point about Judge Brack about how she did not want him to have an upper hand on her to use against her in the future. I also agree completely with those who've said this was her one act against social norms and her defiance against expectations. Sydney said this was Hedda's act to finally grasp control of her life and that is also true. So while those may be motives and thoughts that contributed the Hedda's eventual suicide, why else did she end up killing herself? I have a few more ideas that I did not see talked about in previous posts, my apologies if I do overlap. To me, Hedda denies her pregnancy throughout much of the play. In the end, when she grasps reality, this becomes a factor leading to her death. To Hedda, death is a victory. She is freeing herself to the restricted life she's been forced to lead due to Victorian values of the society she lives in. Lastly, Hedda has gotten to a point where she doesn't believe she has anything to live for. Life hasn't turned out the way Hedda envisioned it, and she no longer has the will to live. After being trapped for so long, an opportunity to end her life presents itself, and Hedda takes it.
- Stephen Sutton
Those are really good points about why Hedda chose to kill herself. Another reason possibly could be that she felt she had always lived by the rules too much. She envied the spontaneous acts of others and loved the invigorating feeling they gave her. Maybe she thought that through such a daring act her death would give that same feeling of euphoria to someone else that other people's acts gave her. She got caught up in the moment and failed to think rationally which led her to do such a drastic act as suicide. She felt it could finally give her the freedom she had always craved because it was the first spontaneous thing she had ever done.
DeleteMichael Angers
Hi everyone! Throughout the play, I was very interested in the relationship between George Tesman and Eilert Lovborg. When George first hears about Eilert going after the same position as him, he immediately feels threatened. Then, once he reads his manuscript, he praises and worships it. And once he hears Eilert is dying, he is ready to drop everything and build up the manuscript to perfection to honor Eilert. Does anyone have any thoughts about this changing relationship? More importantly, what do you think caused this change?
ReplyDeleteHi Allyse,
DeleteI also found these changes between George and Eilert interesting. I think that George's primary motivations for his changing feelings about Eilert are jealousy and insecurity.
When George finds out that he may have to compete with Eilert for the job, he would not have felt threatened if he thought that he was a much better candidate than Eilert. His reaction demonstrates that he most likely thinks that Eilert would be better at the job than he would and, therefore, more likely to get the job.
Then, after hearing about the manuscript, he may be happy because he no longer has to compete for the job now that Eilert is occupied with other things. This job is very important to him because he was counting on getting it when he spent lots of money on buying the house for Hedda.
When he later says that he wants to rewrite the manuscript for Eilert, it almost seemed to me like he was claiming to want to honor Eilert but he really wanted the credit for Eilert's ideas for himself. He was amazed at how good the manuscript was, and he knew he would make lots of money and gain lots of fame if he could sell Eilert's ideas as his own after Eilert's death.
Did anyone else see any reason for these changes other than George wanting more for himself? I would be curious to hear other perspectives.
Hi. Another reason for George's change of feeling toward Eilert could be that he respects great work. He is mature enough to know that a great story is a great story, regardless of who wrote it. Through reading Lovborg's manuscript George may have gotten a new level of respect for Lovborg that surpassed his prior jealousy. The story gave him a better look at Lovborg and that led him to change his image of him. George understands the challenges of writing, so when he comes across an author as talented as Lovborg he feels he must give him the proper respect. Since George an understand how hard Eilert must have worked to create such a masterpiece George seems to start idolizing him. He is amazed by the results of Lovborg's work and feels everyone must read his story to be as moved by it as he was.
DeleteMichael Angers
Hi everyone. The rivalry between George and Eilert is an interesting one. While at first they seem to have had a friendly rivalry in the past, now it seems that both writers have put out few well selling books, and that makes their's a competition of higher stakes. Another thing mentioned in the book is how when Hedda tells George of how she burned the manuscript, he at first becomes irate and demands to know how she could do such an awful thing. Then, though, when Hedda tells him what it means and supposedly why she did it, being for his books not to be overshadowed, he becomes very loving towards Hedda and forgets the previous anger. After Eilert kills himself though, he feels as though he owes a debt to him and begins to rewrite the manuscript.
Delete-Liam Files
DeleteI strongly agree that George is jealous of Eilert, which explains why he was so upset when he learns that they are competing. It could also be that George is intimidated by Eilert's work and accomplishments. He does not seem to have enough confidence in himself and his work to win.
DeleteAlso, not to be a pessimist but, there is another reason I can think of on why George devotes his manuscript to Eilert after he learns he is dying. It could be that he wanted to boost his reputation of writing about Eilert as a dying man. Of course if you announce your writing a memorial piece, you look like a saint, and no doubt that more people would want to read it.
That is just one theory, but it is entirely possible George was just doing it out of respect, as said above. Eilert was a brilliant man, and maybe once the feelings of jealousy and intimidation went away, George was overcome with emotion of him dying. I would even imagine George was also feeling guilty for all the negative emotions he threw at Eilert when he didn't even realize Eilert's life wasn't as perfect as it was portrayed.
All of you bring up great points. I believe that all of the changing feelings towards Lovborg are out of respect and admiration. George is originally nervous and scared to go up against Lovborg for the professorship because he knows how intelligent of a man he is. Towards the end of the play his admiration becomes evident. He saves Lovborg's manuscript when he loses it on his drunken night out. Also, the first thing he wants to do following Lovborg's suicide his attempt to help piece back together the incredible manuscript. George knows how good the manuscript probably was and wants to help recover the masterpiece.
DeleteHey Allyse,
DeleteI believe the fluctuations of George's feelings towards Lovborg is a testament to his character, and what type of person he really is supposed to be to the audience and to the other characters. In my opinion, he symbolizes the genuine goodness that's supposed to exist in life. He feels threatened in the beginning because he's human, and Ibsen uses that to have the audience relate to him as a character. He becomes believable, and someone the audience has reason to care about now. When the manuscript is introduced, George is impressed and shares his excitement about it because he believes in the overall exploration into his studies, as shown earlier by his enthusiasm about reading and learning as much as he can. Towards the end, I believe he uses the reconstruction of the manuscript to honor him because he saw the potential within Lovborg, and with him now gone and his greatest life accomplishment destroyed, he has the ability, this responsibility if you will, to reproduce the manuscript.
Hi Allyse and Madalyn! I completely agree with what Madalyn said, I think that Tesman was jealous of Eilert and scared of not getting the job. Another reason why he might have quickly jumped at the chance to help rewrite Eilert's play was to alleviate some guilt. He was the one who found Eilert's manuscript and gave it to Hedda. Not only that but, Hedda herself said that she burnt it for Tesman's sake. By helping get the work published, Tesman can feel better about the part he played in both the loss of the manuscript and in Eilert's resulting death.
ReplyDelete-Kylie Boyle
These are really great realizations, and I wouldn't have really thought of them before. I think you are both right, he probably did want some of the fame that he had been craving, and he also probably was very guilty. Thank you guys!
DeleteHi Allyse, Madalyn, and Kylie!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kylie that Tesman's decision to piece the manuscript back together was probably the result of his guilt. He was jealous of Eilert but he never wanted to steal his work. Tesman seemed more of an honest and righteous character in my opinion. When George first brought the manuscript home, he was telling Hedda how he wanted to return it in the morning when Eilert is sober. Tesman was concerned about how Eilert will react when he wakes up without his manuscript. He appeared genuinely upset at Hedda when she first told him what happened to the manuscript, so I would like to think that he is doing everything out of guilt for the role he played in Eilert's death.
Madalyn mentioned that Tesman could possibly have an ulterior motive for helping Eilert. That is something I never thought about. Madalyn's comment really made me think more about Tesman's character. Maybe he isn't as virtuous as I originally thought...
-Beryl Chen
Hi guys! I agree with Beryl when she said that she never thought that he could have done it out of the desire for personal gain. I still think that the way his character was originally described, and how it was described in this scene, he did it purely out of guilt and for the want to help his friend. This is because like stated earlier he was purely concerned with how worried Eilert would have been in the morning when he discovered his manuscript missing. In addition when he said that he would help to put his manuscript back together he never said that he would put his name on it, but simply as a way to remember him forever. Also, when they were originally discussing the manuscript he thought that it was important to get it published as it was a piece that was true to who he was as a person and he was genuinely impressed with his work. Finally, even though there was a time where he was worried about the future of his career, that soon subsided when Eilert said he was no longer going for that position. Yet, I do think you guys brought up a good point that is definitely an interesting idea. Does anyone else think that Tesman could have had ulterior motives for trying to reconstruct the manuscript?
Delete-Peighton Stirt
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteDid any of you pay attention to the last line of the play where Brack says, "God--people--people don't do things like that"?
During a private conversation with Brack earlier in the play, Hedda briefly mentioned suicide and Brack treated it as a joke. He told her that they were mere words and "people don't do things like that." Little did he know, Hedda was going to follow through with it.
Did anyone else catch this? What are your thoughts on this? I find the ending especially ironic and I think it's a perfect way to bring closure to the play.
Also, what do you think Brack means by "people don't do things like that?" Is there any significance behind those words?
-Beryl Chen
DeleteHi Beryl!
DeleteI also found that expression very interesting. I think it holds a lot of meaning. Throughout the play Hedda finds herself struggling with social identity, wanting to do things that were "out of the norm" for a person like her in that time. I mentioned this in an earlier response, but to me her suicide was almost an act of defiance.
It was clear that Hedda never had the courage to break out of societal standards. As mentioned above, a lot can see this as cowardly. However when Brack says "people don't do things like that", I think Hedda's suicide is a way of her telling him "I do things like that". I see this as a last attempt to "be free". In a way it ends the play through Hedda finally fulfilling her defiance.
-Monique Michaud
Hi Beryl and Monique!
DeleteI agree that Hedda’s suicide was an act of defiance. Her whole life she was unable to break out of what society expected of her. Her suicide represents her finally being able to sum up that courage. Your response made me think of when we read the Awakening. Edna also broke free of society’s expectations for women through suicide. It’s interesting to me that in both stories suicide is depicted as an act of opposition.
-Caitlin Breslin
Hey girls! I agree with the whole idea that Hedda committed suicide because she saw it as the ultimate act of defiance. When Brack says, "people don't do things like that" after Hedda's suicide, it confirms just how far from the "norm" Hedda is and how society viewed suicide at the time. Like Beryl said, I think Brack's words end the play strongly. By having Brack say this, Ibsen leaves the audience with the idea that Hedda wasn't really mentally stable (throughout the whole play) and therefore, not normal.
DeleteTying in what Caitlin said, I, too, thought of Edna from the Awakening when Hedda killed herself. Both of these women saw death as the only way to escape the burdens that society had placed on them. Also, society's burden on each of the women affected those around them as well; Edna couldn't find the strength in her to raise her children or live with her husband Leonce, and society drove Hedda to be cruel, jealous and manipulative to those around her (i.e. burning the manuscript).
- Arden Ricciardone
Hey there! I thought Brack's words really reflected how people idealize situations -- they speak of suicide as if it just doesn't happen. Brack chooses to see suicide as anything but realistic; the fact that he says "people don't do that" shows that despite the fact that the evidence is right before his eyes, he still wants the world to be a perfect place where bad things such as this don't happen. This was a very common perspective of the time period during which the play was written and published; people back then generally chose to view the world in terms of what would occur in a perfect world rather than what actually happens. I thought it was a very effective way to subtly remind the audience/readers that these characters had a fairly jaded and idealistic view of the world.
Delete-Alix Hietala
Hello all!
DeleteI really agree with my good friend Alix on this one. People do tend to idealize and sort of romanticize suicide. Nobody realizes the true affect of it until they have gone through something like that, just like Brack. He tends to see the world in a different perspective than some others. He only sees the light in things, but then glorifies it and takes it up a notch, if you will. He obviously is shocked by what happened, which caused him to say these comments. As Alix said, people in that time period viewed the world in a different way than us.
Hi everyone,
DeleteI would like to point out that the other instance in which something similar is said is when Hedda is speaking to Thea. Thea says that a woman once threatened to shoot Lovborg, and Hedda replies, "No one does that sort of thing here" (Ibsen 19). As we learn later in the play, the woman who had threatened Lovborg was Hedda herself. I believe that the similarity in Hedda's response here is related to the point brought up by others replying to this post: Hedda fears being a societal outcast, so she quickly tries to distance herself from this unusual action. The repetition of the theme of the breaking of societal norms plays an important role in this play, and I believe that such instances of similar wording are used by Ibsen to ensure that the reader picks up on this.
Hey everybody,
DeleteI think the significance in that last line is more like what Caitlin, Arden, and Monique were saying. Throughout the play, Hedda had been complaining about how she wanted to do things out of the norm, but the other characters were noticing how she seemed too cowardly to actually follow through with any of her "rebellious" thoughts. Her suicide seemed like a final act of rebellion, something "normal" people wouldn't dare to do. Brack was likely, in my opinion, pointing out how sudden her actions were. But her suicide could have also been a cry for help-Hedda's way of showing how horrible she felt her life was, and trying to make people take notice that she wasn't happy. Of course, it's not like anyone can do anything about it now.
Hi everyone,
DeleteI agree that this last line was a really interesting way to end the play. I also agree that it emphasizes how Hedda wants to defy what is normal to most people. It is really quite fitting to her off-beat, rebellious personality. Throughout the entire play, Hedda doesn't seem to think very much of her social interactions. She displays no value whatsover in her relationships. Her act of committing suicide is not only rebellious but also shows how selfish and uncaring she can be. That said, the last line might also reflect an inhuman characteristic about Hedda. This really shows how unhappy she is.
-Michelle Marie
DeleteHello Beryl,
DeleteI believe Brack saw the world around him to be a sort of paradise, where he didn't have to worry about anything, and could indulge himself in many other things. He didn't seem to let emotions get the best of him, and I believe the end of play symbolizes the harsh reality that can come crashing back down on an unsuspecting individual who cannot see the horrors of being alone with only your thoughts all day. Hedda is an example of a tortured soul, who suffers from society's rules, and in turn, pushes that passion into the manipulative acts she commits, which are really cries for help. By her taking her own life at the end of the play, it only solidifies that mental health issues can be enough to disturb an individual into becoming a tragic character.
While reading the play, I understood why people would be mad at Hedda's character. But, I mostly pitied her. She got herself trapped in a marriage which she didn't want to be in, and to add salt to the wound, Tesman didn't give her the time and love she wanted. His mind was always elsewhere and focused on something else, even if he was kind and had good intentions. As stated in previous comments, Hedda was a coward, which is another reason I pitied her. Because of this trait, she was always jealous of others and constantly miserable. Everything that happened to her was at her own fault, caused by decisions she made. Did anyone else notice she was her greatest enemy? And did anyone else pity her for it?
ReplyDelete-Olivia Cayward
Hi Olivia,
DeleteI definitely agree. I think it's sometimes hard for people to imagine what she must be going through. Hedda is a very creative person who craves power and independence. This is exactly the opposite of what women in her time were allowed to have.
It's almost like a caged animal. She sees Eilert as someone who could fufill her spontaneous and romantic needs. However, in the end, she marries Tesman for nothing more than sustainability, to give her what she wants. It's evident that she envies those who are free, such as Thea and her relationship with Eilert.
I pity Hedda simply for the fact that she had to live everyday knowing that, socially, she could never carry out her desires. This is where her cowardliness comes into play. If she ignored the societal standards, which is hard to do for a woman like her, she could have lived a much happier life.
-Monique Michaud
Hi Olivia and Monique,
DeleteI personally do not pity Hedda. This is because she spent her whole existence as a coward. It was not only her death that was cowardly. She lived her entire life unable to make the decisions she needed to make herself happy. However, all she needed was courage. She was solely responsible for entering a loveless marriage, making no attempt to enrich her relationship, making no request of Tesman to help her fulfill her desires, and not opening herself up to the emotions of love and compassion. She could have at any point turned her life around with one single motivated action, but she refused. Eventually, the window of opportunity closed, and she was at the mercy of another man's will (Judge Brack's). By the time she decided to be courageous, her opportunity had vanished. I do not necessarily pity her because she had numerous chances to break free of her burdens and become happy. It is a shame that Hedda's life had to end without her truly being a free person, but I do not pity her for that terrible fate.
Gavin Rublewski
Hi everyone,
DeleteI do not pity Hedda too much but I see why some people would. She is trapped in a marriage that she does not want to be in. Hedda felt that it was time to marry and Tesman was a good option at the time. Hedda was more in love with the idea of being married than she was in love with Tesman. Tesman was in love with Hedda and she felt that she was getting old and that Tesman was good enough for her to marry. Hedda now realizes that she is unhappy with her marriage so she is acting odd around him. I do have some sympathy for Tesman because he is oblivious to the fact that Hedda feels uncomfortable. I do see why some people feel sympathy for Hedda but I personally do not because she got herself into this situation and she is messing with Tesman.
Nicholas Machuga
Hi Olivia, Monique, Gavin, and Nick!
DeleteI agree with Olivia's suggestion of the reader taking pity on Hedda. Throughout the play she is maligned by several characters. Primarily, George is almost never see to show her the love and affection seen in matrimony, save for their honeymoon experiences, which were also lackluster. In addition, George is almost never home, and for many nights he goes out to parties, such as the one at Judge Brack's, Also, Mrs. Elvsted, one of Hedda's trusted friends, sometimes appears frightened and scared of her, which would evidentally lead her to repel Hedda and damage their friendship. Furthermore, while he was mentioned as a love interest of Hedda's, Judge Brack never engages in anything other than light. casual conversation with Hedda, which would appear to her and an insult or degrading in that he does not return her affection, even as just a friend and acquaintance. Lastly, while Eilert shows her affection, she scorns him away, for fear of her husband and their entrapping yet treasured marriage coming to a collapse. However, the reason Hedda is in this marriage in the first place is because of her cowardice and feelings of disrespect as a person. As Monique said, Hedda craves power and independence, which she cannot have, so this inner conflict also tears away at her. So I do pity her, because she is a trapped human who has been disgraced by her friends and husband and is torn apart by something she needs but can never have.
Casey Bowden
Hey guys,
DeleteI haven't finished the book yet, but so far I wouldn't say that I pity Hedda. She seems to have married Tesman only because she was getting older and "should" marry someone to support her, and doesn't love him. It almost looks to me like she doesn't respect him, either, because she goes on and on about how bored she is with her life, not caring about what he's done for her. I'm sure this could all change as I get farther into the play, but she seems disappointed with the life he's given her, even though Tesman has had to give up a lot for her. Right now, she seems ungrateful. She can't remember the name of her friend, and appears to be flirting with Brack, when she is a married woman. She may not love Tesman, but she made a commitment to stay with him, and even though she said she'd never cheat on him, that appears to be exactly what she is doing. Instead of a person to be pitied, Hedda seems like someone who needs to be reminded of all that people have done for her.
Once again, I'm sure this could all change as soon as I finish the book.
Maggie Watson
Hi everyone,
DeleteMy perception of Hedda changed throughout the play. At first I viewed her as an extremely manipulative person who is in the situation she is purely because of her actions. I saw that she made no effort to change the things about her life which angered her, and therefore did not pity her. However, as I neared the end of the play, my outlook changed. I grew to pity her character because I saw that she was more than a person with a thirst for power. As Casey mentioned, she is not truly close with any people in her life and she feels as though she is trapped in her situation. Ibsen emphasizes this by making the setting constant, even when some of the characters go elsewhere. I can see how readers will still be repelled by Hedda's overbearing persona, but I grew to sympathize for her. She clearly is unhappy and her response appears to be lashing out at her surroundings.
-Ali Soucy
Hello Ali,
DeleteI also believed that Hedda was extremely manipulative. She controlled not just herself, but tried hard to control others around her as well. I understand where you're coming from, that she felt trapped, but she never tried to fix it. She never truly tried to change her circumstances. I would have pitied her more if she had handled things differently. I believe she handled her feelings in a bad manner. She lashed out at the only people she had around her, especially Tesman who showed her nothing but compassion. Then finally instead of trying to fix things and take control of her life she kills herself. My feelings did shift somewhat shift from annoyance to pity but I would have pitied her more if she had at least tried to make her situation better.
Hello Everyone,
DeleteAs most of you have said, I do feel pity for Hedda. She already feels pressure in society and because she is so isolated from everyone, she has a hard time connecting with people. As Casey said, George is always out at parties, leaving his wife at home. Although he has done a lot for her, the only thing that Hedda really desires from him is to have more power, which is very difficult to have in a male-dominated society. Even though she rebels against society to try and feel as if she is more superior, it just makes people gain lots of disrespect for her.
Hedda grew up with a military father, so she was taught to conform to strict rules. As an adult, she wants to stray away from so much structure in her life and become free. She also wanted to have more excitement, which she found in Lovborg's creative aspirations. She obviously wasn't ready for marriage, and fell in love with the wrong person, who had a pretty ordinary lifestyle. This wasn't what Hedda was looking for, which unfortunately made her feel trapped in her unhappy life.
I do not pity Hedda at all. Many of you have stated that she is in a tough marriage with a man that does not give her the proper attention. However, if this is the case she has the ability to leave and had the ability to never enter the relationship if she would have just been patient and tried to find actual love. Many of you have also stated that you pity her because social pressures have made Hedda into a coward. However, I believe that being a coward isn't something permanent. You always have the ability to strike up some couage, If Hedda really wanted to, she could have left her relationship like Thea had and tried to find her own happiness and beauty in life.
DeleteOlivia,
DeleteI did not pity Hedda. I agree she caused many of her own misfortunes, but I think she could’ve helped herself if she had wanted to. She didn’t have to get married to Tesman, he just had the most to potentially offer. If she had chosen someone based on her feelings, she would’ve been happier with them. Tesman also wouldn’t have bought that expensive house which she hated if she hadn’t lied about always wanting it. Hedda is also the one who pushed Lovborg away, and then was jealous someone else wanted him. I did not pity Hedda because she could’ve controlled her own misery if she had really wanted to.
-Ryan Lentocha
DeleteHello everyone,
DeleteLike others had said, throughout the play, I did find my views on Hedda changing as the plot developed. Originally, I saw her as more of a selfish sort of person that didn't care much about others. As the play progressed, the character of Hedda was revealed to me as a sort of dreamer. She wanted a life that she didn't set herself up for or, some may say that she wasn't ready for. It seems to me that she married Tesman with the intent of them continuing on with extravagant romanticism. Hedda realized her mistake when after their long honeymoon, Tesman wanted to settle down and be closer to his family. Hedda and Tesman had two different ideas of what they wanted out of the relationship. I pity Hedda on her lack of decision making, but ultimately it was up to her and she seems to have made a bad decision for herself.
-Andrew Lavertu
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteI've just begun the play, and I have a few initial thoughts to share regarding Hedda and George. I'm literally only 20 pages in, but I've already developed strong opinions on these two characters.
From what I can tell, Hedda is extremely pertentious and uppity. She is constantly crtical of others, demanding, and unpleasant. To make matters worse, everyone around her feeds these traits by treating her like a princess who deserves the world. From what I can infer I don't belive she is very satisfied with her marraige, but I still think she is conducting herself poorly and handling the situation immaturely. I may only be at the beginning of the play, but I already hate her. I guess my point is, I'm surprised that Ibsen would develop such an important character, the character that the play is named for, in the manner that he did.
Additionally, George (while not even remotely as obnoxious as Hedda) seems to be somewhat arrogant as well. It appears that everyone close to him constantly feeds his ego and tells him how great he is at everything. Especially his Aunt. Again, I find it odd that our two most important characters here are so annoying to listen to.
Anyways, these are just a few thoughts I had as I began to read the play.
Thanks,
Josh Quimby
Hi Josh!
DeleteThe pretentious nature of both Hedda and George is very obvious throughout the entirety of the story, however it is different in both of their cases. Hedda gained her snobbish nature through other people showing her attention, but her popularity came from other people showing her pity as well. She constantly complains to others about such things as her husband and his job insecurity, or her disappointment in their seemingly lavish honeymoon, or her inability to maintain one single lover. She constantly makes people feel bad for her. This is how she appears popular and is able to act snobbishly around others. However, this creates a number of insecure, fake friends such as Judge Brack or Mrs. Elvsted, who are not completely loyal to her. This causes more faults in her character, and leads to her eventual social collapse as a strong protagonist. George, on the other hand, gains his pompous nature through a more material means, as his previous employment placed him in a position of power, and people in such positions are often viewed with admiration. Explaining his character and its attributes is much easier than Hedda's, which contributes to the simplicity of George, and how he is a static character, as opposed to Hedda. Hedda undergoes much more development than George, as she is a much more complex character and contributes more to the story as a pivotal and crucial factor in its development and structure.
Casey Bowden
Hey guys,
DeleteHedda and George are definitely an interesting couple. As I was reading the play, Hedda's manipulative and obnoxious nature really stuck out, and when compared to Hedda, George doesn't seem that bad at all. I agree that George is a static character while Hedda is much more dynamic. I think that another part of Hedda's terrible nature has to do with her lack of happiness and want for freedom. She has a dream to be defiant and individualistic towards social standards, and unfortunately that means every interaction she has with another character is rude and arrogant.
-Michelle Marie
Hi guys,
DeleteI was thinking the same thing as Michelle, that Hedda's life is a big reason of why she is who she is. At first reading it, I was very annoyed by the rudeness of Hedda to the Tesman family. But continuing on with the play, those feelings of frustration towards her turned into pity. It is clear she is not at all happy in her life or with her husband George. I would imagine she feels trapped, in that life, unable to change anything. With that in mind, I now understand her overbearing attitude. Not that I'm justifying her behavior, but she is stuck in a life she doesn't want by social expectations. I'm not sure if the irritability is part of her personality, or just caused by her unfortunate circumstances. I always thought she is just trying to get out her frustration by lashing out to the people around her, and that is the majority of the reason she acts like she does.
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteOne interesting fact that I just wanted to note was the significance of the play's title. Despite her marriage, the title is not Hedda Gabler Tesman, but simply Hedda Gabler. This is likely due to Hedda's views on her marriage and the person that she wanted to be. She spent the entire play desperately trying to build up the courage to be an independent human being, free from social standards and conformity. She was never in love with her husband, George Tesman, and simply married him because she knew that socially, it was time for her to marry and George was a good, kindhearted, and acceptable husband. She hated herself for doing this but could not bring herself to step out from the norm and be who she wanted to be (until it was too late, that is). She spent her short life as a married woman staying home and watching others interact in society and enjoy themselves, while attempting to deceive and trick those whom she did herself interact with. She was never really Hedda Gabler Tesman, but rather Hedda Gabler trapped inside of the conforming Hedda Gabler Tesman.
Gavin Rublewski
Hi Gavin,
DeleteI agree with your observations and these traits are shown from the very beginning of the book. In the first Act we can see that Hedda is uncomfortable in her marriage. The first time that she appears she is talking to Tesman and his Aunt Julia. Hedda seems to not care about anything that Tesman holds close to his heart. We see this when Tesman recieves his "old morning-shoes" that he missed so much. When Tesman tries to show them to Hedda she declines saying she simply does not care about them. Hedda is also clumsy with her choice of words. In this same conversation she sees a bonnet lying on the chair. Before Hedda discovers who it belongs too, she calls it old. When she finds out that it belongs to Tesman's Aunt she tries to cover her tracks but ends up insulting her and forming a wedge between herself and Aunt Julia. Overall, we can see that Hedda is indifferent to Tesman's interests and happiness.
-Nicholas Machuga
Hi Nick! I agree that Hedda blatantly shows her disinterest in Tesman and his happiness. A lot of the time, this made me feel really bad for Tesman. He’s getting used and toyed with by a wife who does not love him. Sometimes, though, Tesman annoyed me. For an adult, he seemed kind of naïve and ignorant. It is obvious that Hedda is manipulating him and he has absolutely no idea. It was frustrating for me to watch him be used again and again and he just let it happen. I think that I would have sympathized with him more if he had stood up for himself and actually realized what was going on.
Delete-Caitlin Breslin
Caitlin,
DeleteYou make a great point in saying that Tesman was ignorant. He made no attempt to stop Hedda’s manipulation, most likely because he failed to realize it was occurring. I also feel like he never truly got to know Hedda as a person. Instead, he gratuitously idealized her and treated her like a prized possession, boasting, “I fancy I have several good friends about town who would like to stand in my shoes” (Ibsen 18). Tesman constantly went out of his way to please Hedda and buy his way into her heart. I don’t believe Tesman ever loved Hedda, but he sure adored her. Unfortunately, this adoration never prompted Hedda’s happiness and Tesman’s “feelings” for her were unrequited.
Hi Kelsey,
DeleteI agree with you that Tesman never made an attempt to get to know Hedda, and he viewed her as a trophy the whole time. However, Hedda never really gave him a chance to learn more about her as a person. She was so focused on keeping a good reputation and doing everything "right," which made it difficult for Tesman to see her true personality. Throughout the play, she is seen mumbling discontentedly underneath her breath and showing frustration when she is alone by herself. Like Gavin mentioned, Hedda Gabler was trapped within Hedda Tesman, who conforms to social norms. I feel like both Tesman and Hedda were at fault for their unhappy marriage.
-Beryl Chen
Hi Kelsey,
DeleteI found your point about Tesman interesting. I do think that he holds Hedda as some sort of trophy. But in my opinion I believe that he did love Hedda, I believe he has always had a specially spot on his heart since they were younger, now that he has his prize he feels simply lucky to have her. He will let her do as she pleases, as long as she shows a sense of feeling or love toward him, no matter how dim or dull it is. This is why he lets her bring the book pass by him so easily.
- Kevin Shorey
Hi guys,
DeleteI thought your points were really interesting-I had been trying to puzzle out why the book had the title that it does. Hedda seems really unhappy with the life that Tesman had provided for her, and while I find this ungrateful, it would make sense that deep down, she wanted to stop conforming and follow her heart, rather than society. However, I wouldn't say I feel bad for her. I know that it is hard to do the opposite of what society expects of you, but she takes advantage of people in her "boredom" and insults others rather than trying to solve her problems. I am confused, however-where did you all find evidence that Tesman treats Hedda as a trophy? I know he dotes on her, but it seemed to me that he genuinely cared for her. I'm not done with the book yet, but I am a good ways into the third act, and haven't noticed him treating her like a prize, as if he "won" someone better than the other available women. Maybe someone could clear this up for me?
Maggie Watson
Hi Kevin,
DeleteI found your point about Tesman's love for Hedda to be very interesting. As I read the play I grew to sympathize with Tesman more than any of the other characters. I felt that he so badly wanted to have a deep connection with his wife, but she did not feel the same way. Because of this, he allows her to take advantage of him. Her constant made-up excuses never fail to fool him, and this made me feel particularly sorry for his situation. For example, when she tells him that she has burnt the manuscript, he is furious at first. He cannot comprehend why she would do such a thing, but once she tells him that she "did it for his sake" he is overwhelmingly grateful for her actions. This scene made me realize Tesman's gullibility as well as his pointless search for a connection with his distant wife. I felt as though his immediate acceptance of her explanation revealed that all he wanted was to be appreciated by her. This interaction, among many others, made me feel as though Tesman is trapped in his relationship with Hedda and he will never truly be loved by his wife the way he dreams of being.
-Ali Soucy
Hi Ali,
DeleteI agree with the fact that Tesman deserves more sympathy in the play. I feel bad for Hedda and the situation she has ended up in as a result of the pressures of society, but I don't think it's fair that she seems to take out that frustration on Tesman. Hedda constantly alludes to her displeasure of the life she is now a apart of, yet she does not do much to change her situation. Instead of trying to make the most of the position she is in she acts cold to the people around her who are trying to give her a life she might appreciate. One example was the house Tesman bought for her. The purchase of that house caused Tesman's aunt to have to use some of her own money to help George pay for the house he bought solely because Hedda mentioned she liked it. Instead of being grateful for that, Hedda just complains to others about how much she dislikes the house. I really think Tesman's heart is in the right place throughout this play and he still remains kind despite the loss of his aunt Rina and being stuck in an unloving marriage.
Hello Everybody,
DeleteI do agree in the statement that it is a bit confusing how the title of the play is "Hedda Gabler" rather than "Hedda Tesman." As I was reading along the play i did notice that and was a bit confused. I can see how in a way it an show that Tesman is a very somewhat minor character in the bigger picture of things but he is important in how he gives the reader a sense of the situation is and what Hedda's past is like. We learn much about Hedda as the play goe on and it is very interesting to see the progression of learning about her.
Bonsoir Fellow Classmates I hope this post finds you all well,
ReplyDeleteAfter pondering over many of the posts on the blog, I could not help but notice a common theme among some of them. Without a doubt, Hedda romanticizes and is intrigued by acts of defiance. Not only does this explain her dramatic suicide, but it also sheds light onto why she befriended Eilert Lovborg in the first place. She was intrigued that someone from 'old-money' could act so scandalously. She viewed Lovborg's alcoholism and behavior as acts of defiance against the pre-established norms of the time that enforce civility and refinement among those of the upper echelon.
Although she does become close with Lovborg, she keeps him at an arm's distance for fear of scandal. It would be the talk of the town if the general's daughter associated with a drunkard. Hedda is too cowardly to live out the rebellious life herself so she lives it indirectly through Lovborg. Her lack of a backbone makes it hard for me to sympathize with her.
Do you all feel sympathy for her? What about Eilert?
As always, best wishes
- Ryaan Shaikh
Hi Ryaan ~
DeleteI found it hard to sympathize with Hedda throughout the play. As you said, she was intrigued by defiance but refused to act on that interest; the fact that she acted high-and-mighty as though she was a rebel herself but was unwilling to establish a true friendship with Lovborg due to the fear of losing her image is quite irritating. It seems as though her only act of defiance (other than her suicide) was her relentless bullying of Thea, and even that was safe because she knew she wouldn't get in trouble for it.
I'm not quite sure where I stand with Lovborg, though. I felt as though he was quite melodramatic -- for example, his comparison of his manuscript to a living, breathing child -- and his knack for being over-the-top made it difficult to trust him to be anything but dramatic. However, at times he seemed like he was genuinely struggling to fit in and find who he is, which made me feel a bit sorry for him.
-Alix Hietala
Hi Ryann and Alix!
DeleteI don't sympathize for Hedda in any way, shape or form. How can you sympathize with someone that digs their own hole. Hedda chose to marry a man she didn't fancy. She chose to care about herself above everything, not caring who she hurt in the process. Her cowardness and complete disregard for the people around her leave me with no room to sympathize with her.
Lovborg however, I do sympathize with, Lovborg is described as being a changed man in the beginning of the play, who is comin back to reestablish himself an create a new life for himself. When he encounters Hedda he slowly unravels. He reverts to his drunkardness, loses his book, and dies, in somewhat, at the hands of Hedda. I feel bad that Lovburg had Hedda's influence push him toward demise.
- Kevin Shorey
Ryaan (nice use of French), Alix, and Kevin,
DeleteJust like you all, I do not sympathize for Hedda at all. I believe that she brought this upon herself in many different ways. She was a selfish girl that got herself intertwined in a marriage that she did not like. She felt miserable and trapped. She feels superior to those around her and leaves all other people behind her in the dust, even some people she truly cared about. Her actions and personality led me to not sympathize for her at all.
Like Kevin, I do sympathize for Lovborg because we can all tell that he changed. He turned his life around to make himself feel better. After he meets Hedda, he turns back around to his old ways. He makes bad habits and decisions again. As we know, Hedda somewhat seemed to push him to revert to his old ways. When somebody does this to you, it is life changing, and can turn out bad, just as it did for Lovborg. Therefore, I do sympathize for him.
Ryaan, Alix, Kevin, and Olivia,
DeleteAlthough you all do bring up some strong points, I would have do disagree with not sympathizing for Hedda. I don’t believe that she brought her suicide on herself, but that she was a victim of society. Ryaan, you say she has no backbone, but I think she shows a lot of courage to wake up everyday to such a dull, unfulfilling life. And Alix, you say you feel for Eilert because he is really struggling to fit in, but isn’t Hedda struggling to fit into the life that women were forced to live during that time? Kevin, you said that Hedda’s cowardness led you to not sympathize for her, but if she was cowardly, how is Eilert not? He regresses just the same when he lets his impulses get the best of him and goes out to drink with Brack and the rest of the group and eventually loses his manuscript. While yes, it is easier to feel more sorry for Eilert, I do think that Hedda deserves a bit of sympathy as well.
-Eva Riggott
Hey Kevin,
DeleteI think you may have a little too harsh on Hedda, quite frankly, I don't believe she is a coward at all. Society has this underlying belief that committing suicide is cowardly. However, you must understand how mentally broken Hedda became, which is what led her to find beauty in killing herself. I think Hedda might have reevaluated herself after Judge Brack blackmailed her, and realized how cruel she was herself. She might have been overwhelmed with guilt and regret. For that reason, I am very sympathetic for her, as life should cherished not despised.
Hi guys,
DeleteI do sympathize for Hedda. I feel bad that she is forced to live a life that she is truly unhappy with. The societal standards at the time forced women to become wives and take care of their families. Women did not have much freedom, at the time, and I think this caused Hedda to go crazy and become manipulative. Hedda wanted to be free and be a rebellious person which was frowned upon. Even though she was a manipulator and ruined friendships I still feel sorry for her. She's ultimately stuck in a life that is boring for her. I think the situation with the Judge caused her to feel stuck and powerless. I think her suicide was not cowardly at all. Instead I think Hedda committed suicide to finally feel free from all the pressures of society. Like Eva said, she was a victim of society. I do sympathize with her because she thought that the only way to free herself from all the negativity was by committing suicide. I think people are too harsh on Hedda. Yes, she was a mean and manipulative person, but she also was stuck in a life she hated and didn't know how else to get out of it.
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteOne thing I've noticed is that Hedda Gabler likes being in control, not just of herself, but of other characters as well. Over the course of the book she mentions control many times. At one point in the book she tells Thea that she likes to have an influence over the relationships of others. She has the power to save Lovborg's career by returning his manuscript but doesn't, and then later acually gives him the pistol that kills him. She also shows her need for control in her relationship with Thea, which she seems to dictate through Thea's fear of her. And finally in the end, when Judge Brack threatens her and she loses control of her own life, she kills herself.
~ Emily Collins
Hi Emily!
DeleteThat's definitely the common theme with Hedda, wanting whatever power she can get. This is probably due to her lack of freedom in this time. I think she's conflicted with wanting freedom but also being held down by society. In all reality, Hedda could have taken a stand and acted on her desires but in the end, she never did. Hedda cares more about her image, hence why she married Tesman only for the sustainability, and less about what she actually wants.
I think she uses the manipulation of other people to almost entertain herself. That's why I believe she was so infatuated with Thea and her relationship. She knows that morally she could never have what she wants, so she tries to gain power through whatever way she can. In this case, that's through those around her.
-Monique Michaud
Hi Emily and Monique!
DeleteI completely agree that Hedda craves power and control. The end of the novel shows just how far she will go to obtain that. Throughout the story, Hedda constantly tries to snatch at power but is denied it. She cannot get the material wealth that she tries to coax from Tesman, she cannot separate Thea from Eilert, and she cannot get the honorable death from Eilert that she so desires. After being denied time and time again, Hedda decided to take control of the last thing she has power over; her death. In this way, Hedda never again has to feel powerless. Though she is a hardhearted and selfish woman, I pity her in this. Being female in this time period meant having no say in one's life. Death was her only escape from powerlessness.
- Kylie Boyle
Hi Emily,
DeleteI agree, Hedda has a need for control. I think this is because of how boring her own life is, so she amuses herself by manipulating others. One of the times this appeared was when Hedda noticed that Thea had some influence over Eilert’s drinking habits. Hedda was able to not only trick him back into drinking again, but also to kill himself in a beautiful way when he couldn’t find his manuscript.
She didn’t only want to control other people’s lives, but also her own. This wasn’t common for women in this time period, which helped make Hedda into such a unique character. When she noticed that this was at risk, she chose to kill herself. She wanted to make her own decisions and control her own destiny. I agree that having control was a big part of Hedda’s character.
-Kaelyn Perkins
Hello all,
DeleteI believe that Hedda controls others simply because she finds it amusing and wants to get rid of the boredom in her life. The only form of entertainment she really has is manipulating and controlling others. This gives her the power that she desires, when people let her walk all over them.
Hedda is not the only character who feels a need for control. It is apparent that power and influence provide a major role in this play. Judge Brack wants control over Hedda so that he can have access to her time whenever he feels like it is convenient. Lovborg wants to control the world by looking into its future, even though he can't seem to control himself under the influence of alcohol (in this case alcohol controls him). Mrs. Elvsted comes to town so that she can control Lovborg's life under self-destruction. Overall, most characters look for control, which shows how everyone is in dire need for power over others.
Hello fellow classmates!
ReplyDeleteAs many of you have commented on, we feel differently about her actions and whether to pity her or not. So I ask you: "Are Hedda's actions justified by the nature of her time period and stifling personal life?" In regards to pity, could you expect better of yourself if you were in Hedda's situation? In an unwanted marriage and pregnancy, Hedda may be a very different person if she were to live in today's time, where women are thought of more highly than they were in the 19th century. Overall I am just conveying how the impact of the era Hedda is living in has on her life and how it seems to confine her life.
- Stephen Sutton
Hello Stephen,
DeleteI think Hedda living in the Victorian Era took a HUGE toll on her and caused he to act out in certain situations. During this time women were expected to stay home, do housework, take care of the children, and in some situations instruct the servants. They were given very little leeway with what they were allowed to do. Hedda was a wild one. She wanted to play with her pistols, flirt around, and explore the luxury of the world. She was desired by many, but only choose to settle down when she reached the ripe age of 30. Had it not been a custom of the era, I believe she wouldn't have settled down. She doesn't love Tesman and makes that very clear by her lack of empathy for his family and continuous flirtation with Lovborg. Her pregnancy only had her feel more trapped in the house and in her life. Her time period forced her marriage and her to repress part of her wild side. If she were alive today she would not have kids, not be married, and would be much happier. She could go and have fun at night and on the weekends enough so that she could be able to go to work and be independent during the day. The time period helped lead to Hedda's demise.
-Alyssa Carneiro
Hi Stephen and Alyssa,
DeleteI do pity Hedda, as I believe that she has done everything possible to change her destiny when her circumstances are taken into consideration. Hedda is an aging woman who is already being lowered in society through her marriage to George. However, it is not likely that she could find any other man in higher standing than George. Hedda's manipulation is her attempt to ameliorate her own life--by changing the lives of others, she hopes that she can both improve her own existence and live vicariously through her friends. Hedda is forced to be highly subtle in her manipulations, as forthright meddling would be frowned upon by society. For these reasons, I believe that Hedda is a pitiable character because she has done everything possible to improve her life and has been unsuccessful at every turn.
Hello Stephen and Alyssa!
DeleteThe way I see it Hedda was shaped by her era, but ultimately the decisions that she made were her own. Taken at face value without regarding the social, and personality factors, her actions are inexcusable. When we look at the bigger picture her actions are more understandable. Women in the Victorian Era had it pretty rough, the societal pressures were immense and conformity was expected. Hedda longs for control over her life, she feels stuck in a marriage that she hates because she feels constrained by her new life as a housewife. She wishes for control in the form of a more equal role in her marriage but refuses to consider that George, who seemingly will do anything to please her, will allow her more freedom. Unfortunately she lacks the courage to act. Because of this she chooses to live through others through manipulation so she can feel like she has control while conforming with the ideals of the era. Her refusal to even try to fix her situation is what really limits her, due to this I find that Hedda is not a pitiable character and that her actions were not justified.
-Teddy Fischer
Hi everybody!
ReplyDeleteThroughout the play, I kept expecting Hedda's character to be revealed more -- however, I felt as though she remained shrouded in mystery until the very end. We understood her desire for power and defiance, sure, but we never really understood why; was she insecure with herself? Perhaps so secure with herself that she needed everybody else to know it?
I also found her marriage to George interesting, as she never appeared to find him particularly exciting or even slightly lovable (i.e. her response of "Love? What an idea!" when Lovborg suggested that she loved her husband [Ibsen 79]). Although she claims that it was because he was wealthy enough to suit her standard of living, I thought that maybe she married him simply because she knew she was more powerful than him, which gave her a sense of control in the relationship, further emphasizing her desire for a feeling of authority. Does anyone have any thoughts on any of this?? Thank you!
-Alix Hietala
Hey Alix,
DeleteHedda seems sort of unhinged at times and has a dark personality throughout the play. She blatantly tries to defy George and his family multiple times with insults (the bonnet incident) in order to bring herself up and seem extremely entitled. George seems to be a figurehead to her, simply so she looks like a powerful, educated women married to a rich man which will make her look better in society. It is obvious that Hedda despises George, and she simply sees him as a step up in the world. I would agree with your point on her having insecurities because it looks like she wants to strive to be someone belonging to the top class in society, and she does this by going through George.
-James Heaney
Hi Alix and James,
DeleteI believe that Hedda is insecure because she has experienced a fall in societal standing. She comes from a very wealthy family and is well-known for her grandfather, the general. She had expected to marry someone who is as respected as she. However, by the age of 30, Hedda has not found any man who satisfies this condition, so she is forced to marry George Tesman. Although George is not by any means impoverished or disrespected in society, he is definitely of a lower class standing than Hedda. Hedda pities herself because she has not achieved the future which had seemed definite throughout her life. She has been forced to settle for a man for whom she has no feelings. She believes herself to be a tragic loser in the game of life, and therefore is insecure about her societal and financial status.
Hi Alix,
DeleteI agree that there wasn’t much revealed about Hedda’s character, other than her need for control. Since this story is written in play format, we don’t get to see what is going on inside of the character’s heads, only what they show and choose to reveal to the people around them. I do agree with Meghan, that Hedda seems insecure. Her marriage with George brought down her social standing, but your comment about her having more control because of it made a lot of sense, too. Hedda is a pretty complicated character, but I also think that not revealing a lot about her makes her more interesting.
-Kaelyn Perkins
Hi Kaelyn and Alix,
DeleteI also found Hedda to be very intriguing and complicated throughout the play. Kaelyn brought up a great point that because this work is in a play format we are not able to see her thoughts as much as we would like. We are only able to get an impression of Hedda through her actions. She speaks to many characters about her disappointment with George and we get the sense that she feels she is above him, as many of you have commented on regarding her social status. If we could see inside Hedda's head, would she really be disappointed with how George is or is she living up to the expectations of everyone around her? Her actions solidify that she does care for George, even though they may not be total feelings of love. We get different sides of Hedda from her actions. Because of the absence of hearing her thoughts, the readers are left to take away what they want regarding Hedda. I believe this makes her even more of a complicated character and keeps the reader thinking and trying to figure her out.
-Jordan Bonadies
Hi Stephen and Alix!
ReplyDeleteIn regards to whether I believe Hedda’s actions were justified, I believe they were not. While we see that Hedda is in much pain and feels trapped inside a male dominant world, she crosses the line. She gets her kicks from messing with other people’s lives and being controlled and manipulative. She is also not the only person we see struggling in this novel. Thea is struggling with her own marriage and Mrs. Tesman goes through the loss of a relative. And neither resort to such measures as Hedda did.
I also believe that it felt like parts of Hedda’s character were being held off till the end or fully left out. I think she is anger with herself for letting it go that far. She let herself be powerless and she can see her control slipping away, because of this she is always angry with herself.
~ Emily Collins
Hello All!
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the play, I wondered why Hedda refused to discuss her pregnancy. Many of you have talked about her being trapped due to the time period and her marriage. Do you think she avoided talking about the child because it added to her feelings of powerlessness or do you think it was something else?
- Kylie Boyle
Hi Kylie!
DeleteI also noticed Hedda's reluctance to discuss her pregnancy throughout the play. Like you mentioned, I do believe this is mostly due to her desire for independence, something that this baby is potentially holding her back from. Obviously having a child is something that all women in the 19th century were expected to do. This just adds to her feeling a sense of limited power. After all, there is truly nothing she can do about this baby.
I believe Ibsen purposely associates the image of a baby with negativity. Right as Aunt Julie shares the news of Rina's death, she immediately talks about Hedda's baby. Furthermore, the manuscript was frequently referred to as Thea and Lovborg's "child". Even this was eventually destroyed. I think that these images are to show that Hedda having this baby might be a joy to others, but for her, she sees it as another thing that is destroying her slim chance at freedom.
-Monique Michaud
Hi Kylie and Monique,
DeleteI also noticed that Hedda refrained from talking about her pregnancy. I, too, believe that it had something to do with her need for control. This baby would tie her down to her other commitments and take away her final chance to be free. First she had a loveless marriage, but now she had a baby that she didn’t want. Babies are typically associated with happiness and life, but it only had negative connotations here. I believe Hedda thought that if she talked about her pregnancy than that would be here way of accepting it, which was something she did not want to happen. I think that Hedda avoided the topic because she did not want to lose the power she had left.
-Kaelyn Perkins
Hi Kylie, Monique, and Kaelyn,
DeleteI completely agree with your thoughts on the baby taking away any chance of Hedda’s freedom in the future. Throughout the play, the word “child” is associated with death. It is first seen when Hedda burns Lovborg and Thea’s manuscript yelling, “Yes! You and Eilert’s child! I’m burning it! I'm burning the child!” and later on when Hedda finally reveals she is pregnant, in the midst of Aunt Rina’s death. Here, we see a child being the “death” of Hedda’s freedom, of her power and control. However, another thought of mine was that Hedda could perhaps care for the baby, but couldn’t bear it growing up in the world she has suffered so much in, especially if it were to be a girl.
-Eva Riggott
Hi Everyone,
DeleteI agree with what many of you have been saying about Hedda not wanting to accept the baby because if she did she would be relinquishing her freedom. I think that that is a very real fear that Hedda could have especially given the circumstances she is in. For Hedda, having a baby is an act the conforms to the expectations of society which is something that Hedda has made clear she does not enjoy. Traditionally, once a woman starts having children that means she is settling down into the life she has to grow her family. That thought could most certainly disturb Hedda because to her having the baby could be the point of no return. Once she has a baby she has succumbed to the life she had actively hated and can no longer act out in ways that go against society because she has a family she needs to care for an protect. Hedda doesn't want to discuss the baby because it forces her to face an unpleasant reality.
Howdy Y'all,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the play I feel as if I have to question Hedda's motives for suicide as well as when she exactly decided this was the only way.
We know Hedda is stuck in an unhappy marriage, but the breaking point for her it seems is when she realizes Brack has the knowledge about the pistol. She then all in a sort of instant choses to get the gun, go outside, and kill herself.
I was wondering your guys thoughts, was this her true breaking point, or did she have this idea of suicide in her mind since the beginning of hrs. marriage? Or something else?
- Kevin Shorey
Hi Kevin,
DeleteI think that Hedda chose to kill herself because she said that she would like to have the power to mold a human destiny. If you recall, when Brack pulls her aside to tell her of the ensuing turmoil over the fact that she supplied the gun to Lövborg, Brack has leverage over Hedda in the form of knowledge of her giving the gun to Lövborg. This is the opposite of how Hedda had wanted to lead her life. She wanted to be in power not under someone's thumb. She saw the only way to avoid this was to kill herself.
-Michael D'Averso
Hi Kevin and Michael,
DeleteI agree that the turning point that lead Hedda to kill herself was when Brack reveals the knowledge of her pistol being the weapon that killed Lovborg. Even though Brack said that he would keep her secret and refrain from revealing this knowledge with anyone to keep her safe Hedda still decided to kill herself. Hedda had already been in a bad place due to her loveless marriage to a man she regards as beneath her status and she has a baby on the way that she doesn't want. When the news comes to her that she could undergo a public scandal in being involved in Lovborg's death or under the control of Brack if he keeps her secret she decides that her best option is to escape both outcomes. Hedda has shown her desire for control in the way she manipulates others and holds onto her father's pistols. Losing control to Brack would have been a worse fate than death for her.
-Marisa Vatteroni
Hi guys!
DeleteI feel that Hedda's death was not only "a way out" of her unhappy marriage, but also a way to define herself. Throughout the play, social image is a very common theme and is very important to Hedda, that's how she feels in control. After Hedda shot herself, Judge Barack said, "people don't do such things." This made Hedda a point of interest and easily separated her from society (obviously).
With such a swing of events around her - Barack finding out the pistol was hers, the new baby on the way - everything spiraled out of her control. To regain that control, she committed suicide. She found control and freedom in her life, simply by ending it.
Then there's the 'liberating' part of her death, like all of you mentioned. The fact that she would no longer be in an unhappy marriage, as well as a suspect in an 'assisted suicide', things might've just seemed easier if she ended her life.
Personally, I think that there were so many other ways Hedda could've gone to steer away from suicide and protect her baby, but considering her character, it seemed that suicide was the only answer to Hedda.
Teagan Connelly
Hello everyone,
DeleteI think that Hedda's breaking point was when Judge Brack mentioned her pistol. Hedda doesn't like the idea of getting in trouble after breaking rules, so when she realizes that she may have to face a public scandal of investigation regarding the pistol, she becomes horrified. Either way, she would have still had to live under the power of Judge Brack, and she didn't want to face the private shame of an affair with him. She was being blackmailed, and the only way she knew how to escape this was to kill herself. Although Brack played a huge part in Hedda's suicide, there were obviously other reasons why she took her life, for example not being ready to have a baby or being trapped in her marriage. Overall, she felt trapped, but Judge Brack was the biggest influence on her suicide
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteWhy does Ibsen choose to call the play “Hedda Gabler” if her true name is Hedda Tesman? We understand that Hedda’s maiden name is Gabler, yet she is now married and is Hedda Tesman. My personal thought is that Hedda much more enjoyed her past life experiences as a Gabler and resents being a Tesman. Her and George have little in common and she did not want this marriage. I’ve thought about Hedda and how she would act in today’s society as an independent woman, and perhaps the title would be more suitable if written today, yet Ibsen wrote the play in 1890 so this scenario does not exactly fit Ibsen’s thinking. My last thought is that Ibsen wants to portray Hedda through the entirety of the book as her father’s daughter, rather than her husband’s wife. If anyone has more to add I’d be happy to hear.
- Stephen Sutton
Hello Stephen,
DeleteIbsen's choice to call the play "Hedda Gabler" rather than "Hedda Tesman" is definitely a strategic choice that could be symbolic of Hedda's internal conflict throughout the play. In multiple circumstances, characters in the play became dismayed having to call their former friends by their new names rather then their maiden names. Both Thea and Hedda do not seem to associate themselves with there wedded names, because their mariages were coincidences of societal pressure rather than love. This is why I believe Ibsen chose to call the play "Hedda Gabler"-- because it is a representation of Hedda's strong individuality.
- Kaitlyn Bedard
Hi Stephen and Kaitlyn!
DeleteI agree with both of your thoughts about the title of the play. Stephen, I wanted to add on to your idea that maybe if this play was written know in today's society it would make more sense. I believe Ibsen was trying to show that Hedda was a women born before her time. Yes she was entitled and loved to be waited on but she was also headstrong and had no problem taking matters into her own hands to get the job done. The play is called "Hedda Gabler" because that is who she is, she does not belong to anyone except the the people who physically brought her into this world.
Jillian Fiddler
Hi guys,
DeleteIt's definitely clear that she prefers to use her own name rather than the family she is married into. I agree that it is probably because she doesn't feel or want to be part of this new family. Throughout the whole play, it isn't about how she adjusts into this new life with her new husband, but rather what Hedda does on her own but weighed down by the shackles of her marriage. The readers can see that she doesn't want to be with George anymore, let alone take his name. It's also shown that all of her actions and decisions are made only by her, never discussing it with her husband. An example of which she burns the manuscript, much to the dismay of George. I do think she has a very powerful feeling of self- reliance, of not needing permission to do anything. And that never changed, even if she was married. Which is why she died; not as Hedda Tesman, but as Hedda Gabler.
Stephen,
DeleteI think the title is Hedda Gabler and not Hedda Tesman because Hedda craves independence. We know she didn’t want the marriage, but her character shows she likes to be in control of situations and others, and the title symbolizes that idea. She doesn’t want to be viewed as someone else’s, she wants to be her own person. It is clear that throughout the story she is too scared to live life how she would truly like to because of what society will think. I don’t think the title had to do with Hedda not wanting to have his last name or be associated with him. While we know she doesn’t want to be married, she never actually says she doesn’t want to take his name. I think the title symbolizes her personality and inner feelings which we observed throughout the story. The significance in the title being “Hedda Gabler” is to show how she never lets herself belong to Tesman, she remains independent with her own thoughts and actions in her life. It wasn’t about taking his last name, it was about feeling as though she was in control of her own life.
-Ryan Lentocha
DeleteHi Kevin!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree, she makes the decision kinda abruptly and we don’t see many signs that she will take this course. I think it was a mixture of many things that makes her commit suicide. Let’s start with the fact that she was bored, she didn’t have many responsibilities except to stay at home and be there for her husband who was never there. She was trapped in a marriage she didn’t want, to someone she didn’t love and is about to have a baby. She denied it for most of the play but when she argues with Tesman in later acts I think it finally clicks for her. And in the end she has nothing left to live for. Her husband will be gone and working most of the nights leaving her with Brack, she doesn't know how to care for the child she is going to have, and she has nothing keeping her there. After reading up on why she might've made this fatal decision, I found that her final conversation with her husband sounded like this, "Is there nothing I can do to help you two?"
"No, nothing in the world."
"... What will I do evenings?", She sees her husband doesn't need her. No one needs her. Being under Brack’s control was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
~ Emily Collins
Hello everyone!
ReplyDeleteI was wondering why Henrik Ibsen created Hedda's character with the intent of defying the norms in society. Women were expected to have children, and then raise their children. However Hedda basically states that she has no interest in doing so. What do you think Ibsen was saying about women that didn't raise children, and how did this come through in Hedda's character? I'm curious to see what others thought.
-Luis Gonzalez
Hola Luis Gonzalez,
DeleteI believe this story was written to show the exception of the typical aristocratic, lady-like women we were all told about. They're usually polite, loving housewives with husbands they love and have large families. However, Hedda seems the opposite in this case. She'd rather be seen as a powerful women to society and will do everything she can in order to do so. She is not your typical women by any means and doesn't seem like she'd be a great motherly figure at all. In a way, Hedda could have some sort of mental illness or identity crisis within herself because she cannot come to grips on how society views her. Things like playing with guns and arguing with multiple people almost randomly bring out her mental incapacity. Hedda seems to be a defying person who will try everything to get out of her societal role. Ultimately, this is what leads to her demise.
-James Heaney
Hola James!
DeleteI see where you are coming from, however I think that Hedda lacks any maternal instinct making her want to be associated with the powerful paternal men of her generation. She wants power and these men are the ones that have it. I agree that Ibsen wanted to show an exception to the usual lady-like women that were normally seen, but I don’t think Hedda had any sort of mental illness. She was just power hungry and felt out of place filling the normal role of women in that time period.
-Luis Gonzalez
Hey Trey and James!
DeleteI found both of your opinions very interesting but I think I agree where Trey is coming from more (sorry James). Hedda doesn't have any identity crisis, it's actually the complete opposite. She knows exactly who she is, that's the problem. This strong powerful women is trapped in a life that she knows she doesn't belong in. The one thing she can truly control is having children. She knows herself and knows her purpose in life isn't to be a mother, she also probably knows that she wouldn't be a good mother and doesn't want to put helpless children in a bad situation when she can help it.
Jillian Fiddler
Luis and James-
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your comments, I've noticed James brought up the point regarding Hedda's mental capacity. Throughout the play, Hedda's actions lead us to conflict between wondering if she is mentally ill or not. Personally I think that she is mentally ill. After two people have died and her friends and family are grieving, she retreats to her room and does not grieve at all. Hedda even admits to Brack that she has no control over her own actions: "Well, it’s—these things come over me, just like that, suddenly ... and I can’t hold back." She even says that thoughts are not easy to control. The last event pointing to Hedda's possible insanity is when she burns Eilert’s irreplaceable manuscript. These actions point to the possibility that Hedda is mentally ill, and ultimately could be a reason she commits suicide.
-Stephen Sutton
Hi Stephen,
DeleteI would agree with you that Hedda is mentally ill. I think that the lack of grieving Hedda does shows her depression and how all her emotions have died inside. I think that this led to her suicide because she could no longer feel or desired to live. I also believe that she may have felt guilt about giving Ejlert the pistol which led to his death. I think that it is a combination of depression and guilt that caused Hedda to commit suicide.
-Brennan Nick
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about Hedda and her relationship with her pistols. As Hedda inherited her pistols from her father, she is very attached to them which suggests that Hedda is so much more her father’s daughter than her husband’s wife. I saw the pistols as Hedda’s final material connection to her glorious past. The pistols are weapons as well a connection to a man's world, which is inaccessible to women like Hedda in a patriarchal society. Hedda feels empowered and free when she holds her pistols, and this is seen when she randomly fires in Judge Brack’s direction when he comes through the garden. In addition, Hedda could be seen as a loaded pistol as she is just waiting to release her power and destruction. In the end, the irony is that the pistols only empower Hedda in effecting her own self-destruction.
-Luis Gonzalez
Hey Luis,
DeleteI agree somewhat with your connotation of the pistols. To me, when Hedda holds the pistols it represents her temporary escape from the reality of the typical women's role. The pistols were given to her by her father, a powerful, masculine general. This is something Hedda wants in her life because throughout the play, she is trying to escape this life that is expected of her.
Whenever she holds them, it's almost as if she can act freely. When she aims the pistols at Brack one day, it surprises him. Normally, women would not do this and would be ashamed of themselves if they did. However, Hedda doesn't even seem fazed by this and instead acts like it's a normal occurrence to do this. The pistols symbolize her escape from reality and a grip to powerful masculinity.
-James Heaney
Hi Trey,
DeleteI felt the same way about Hedda's relationship with pistols. One particular situation I found significantly ironic regarding this relationship was that she gave Lovborg a pistol, so she would in a sense have some control in the way he dies, yet not only does he end up dying in an irrelevant way, eliminating that sense of control, the pistol results in her demise. The desperation behind this irony is very tragic; she is pursuing some bit of control and she essentially loses all control of her life.
-Keegan Jalbert
Hi Luis!
ReplyDeleteI agree that Hedda keeps them as a connection to the past, but I also read that it could be a reminder that she is still a Gabler rather than a Tesman. I think she keeps them to make her feel like she has more power in this “man’s world”, and that it is another manipulation tactic. It’s more control in her hands. She chooses who they’re pointed at and whether she’ll pull the trigger. She has ultimate control over the life and death of others, including herself. She also views them as toys, just like every other character in the play, someone to manipulate.
~ Emily Collins
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on the topic of why the play is titled Hedda Gabler instead of Hedda Tesman is because Hedda might technically be part of the family but she is not mentally part of the family. By this I mean that she does not want to be part of the family and I believe that that is what the author is trying to convey through the title of the play. If anyone else has different thoughts I would appreciate it if you shared them.
-Michael D'Averso
Hi Michael,
DeleteI agree that titling the play Hedda Gabler instead of Hedda Tesman was Henrik Ibsen’s way of emphasizing Hedda’s disconnection from her husband and his family. It is obvious that Hedda and Tesman are very different. Tesman is extremely devoted to Hedda and often does not notice that she is manipulating him and resents her life as his wife. It can be inferred that Hedda wishes to return to her old life as a Gabler because her life as a Tesman is not as she imagined it would be. She holds onto her old life by keeping and treasuring her father’s pistols and not bothering to hide her disinterest in Tesman’s beloved slippers or her distrust of the family servant. Hedda has made no attempt to connect to the Tesman family and the title of the play reflects that aspect of her.
-Marisa Vatteroni
Hi guys,
DeleteI also agree that the use of Hedda Gabler, instead of Hedda Tesman, in the title shows how she dislikes being associated with the family. Throughout the play we see that Hedda doesn’t have any feelings for George and she only married him because she felt like she had to. She also likes to have power, so by keeping her maiden name, she is able to remain in control of her life. Being referred to as “Hedda Tesman” creates this idea that she now belongs to George, which she does not see as a positive thing.
I also agree with what Marisa said, too. Hedda would much rather treasure her fathers pistols rather than admire George’s slippers. She misses her old life and holds onto the few things left from it.
-Kaelyn Perkins
Hello Everyone!
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the play I couldn't help but notice the ironic connection between children and death. Children are new life and innocent while death is the loss of life and anything but innocent and yet, throughout the play the two are connected. Shortly after the news of Rina's death arrives Hedda finally announces her pregnancy. Tesman's aunt also speaks of weaving a shroud for her late sister and then later talks of making baby clothes for the upcoming member of the family. The only other "child" mentioned in the play is Mrs. Elvsted and Lovbog's "child", the manuscript. Death follows this "child" as well because it's destroyed by Hedda and its destruction leads to the death of Lovborg. I found it strange that death and children would be connected so frequently throughout the play. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
-Marisa Vatteroni
Hi Marisa,
DeleteThat is a very interesting point that you have made about children and death. I think that the author was trying to show that with every death comes new life. I think that the author was trying to show the circle of life throughout the play. However, I think that the manuscript child and Hedda's pregnancy all dying were meant to show how fragile life is.
_Brennan Nick
Hi Marisa. I also couldn't help but notice this as well. While the only one in the play who seems to acknowledge the child is Aunt Rina, it is fitting how she, the one on her death bed, is the messenger of new life, but that it falls upon deaf ears, those being George's. The shroud and babies clothes also bring about more of a sense of life vs. death rather than children vs. death. This can be seen when Hedda praises Eilert after he has killed himself, saying it was a "beautiful final act of passion". This is often not, if ever, how death, or especially a suicide, is portrayed. While we know that Hedda wanted Eilert to end his life, with giving him the gift of the gun, it is easy to draw comparison to how she describes his suicide and what the manuscript, if published, would've symbolized in both Eilert and Thea's minds.
Delete-Liam Files
DeleteHello Fellow Classmates,
ReplyDeleteWhile I was reading this, I came up with the idea that Hedda could have destroyed the manuscript not just as a way to show Tesman she cared (she told him that she didn't want him to be put into Lovborg's shadow), but as an act of defiance regarding Thea and Lovborg's relationship. I think she was jealous of their love and happiness together, something she did not share with Tesman. When they call the manuscript their "child," it seemed like the last straw for Hedda. She was pregnant, but to her, the child was more of a burden than a symbol of love, and right next to her, was this happy couple with a literary art as precious to them as a child. As others have commented, Hedda wanted to be defiant, so by letting her jealousy control her, she was able to make Thea and Lovborg feel a bit of the suffering she had been going through, and she was able to make another small "rebellion" to free her from the bore of everyday life. What do you guys think? Was burning the manuscript just to help Tesman? Or was it a way for Hedda to vent her anger regarding Thea and Lovborg's good fortunes?
Hi Maggie,
Deleteafter reading the play in its entirety I arrived at a fairly similar conclusion. On the surface Hedda's actions regarding the manuscript appear to be an act of jealousy or even revenge against Lovborg's and Thea's relationship. To better understand Hedda's actions we need to understand her mental state and her past relationships. Its revealed to us that Hedda and Lovborg were close friends bordering on partners earlier in life, more specifically when he was not shackled by his work. He was a bit of a free spirit and Hedda was attracted to this like a moth to light. She yearned to be free of her constricting life in high society as the attractive, young daughter of a prominent general. Lovborg was this escape. She lived vicariously through him, experienced things that society thought a woman of her social standing never should. They later parted ways due to Lovborg's attempts to nurture their friendship into something more, something that Hedda feared would ruin her image. Now, later in life Hedda finds out that Lovborg is back and has reformed himself into a completely different man, much to Hedda's surprise. She still yearns for the freedom that she experienced earlier in life. Due to this Hedda begins trying to reinstate the old Lovborg in order to live through him once again. Her actions culminate with the destruction of the manuscript and the removal of Thea as a influence so that Hedda can fulfill her desire for release from society's pressures.
-Teddy Fischer
Hi guys!
DeleteI agree with Maggie that Hedda's destruction of the manuscript was motivated by jealousy and also with Ted, that it was motivated by a desire to bring back her old life of relative freedom.
However, I think that there was a deeper reason for her destruction. Hedda constantly references "vine leaves" she imagines in Lovborg's hair, symbolic of the free spirit she desires him to have. This was, as Ted stated, borne of her desire to live through Lovbog’s freedom since she, as a woman, couldn’t experience all of it herself. As Maggie said, Hedda saw the manuscript as a "child" between Lovborg and Thea, but, more than something that makes her jealous of their relationship, I think Hedda sees it as something that will tie Lovborg down, much like she feared her own child would do to her. In destroying the manuscript, Hedda believes she is doing Lovborg a favor by freeing up his life from an unwanted burden.
Hedda's destruction of the manuscript was a defining moment in the story, one that was motivated by a number of different factors, and I’m sure there are more possible motives for Hedda’s act that haven’t yet been mentioned.
-Kalina Bonofiglio
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteThroughout this play, I curious on why it was called Hedda Gabler instead of Hedda Tesman. she was clearly married to George, and just got back from their honeymoon, it also isn't very common for a woman to keep her maiden name after marriage. But as the play continued, to started to notice how Hedda was seen more as her fathers daughter than as a wife to George Tesman. In the beginning of the text, when Miss Tesman was talking to Berta, she referred to Hedda as "General Gabler's daughter" not the wife of George. She also noted on Hedda's past, luxurious life, which is revealed later in the text when she asks for the new piano and horse along with other expensive objects.
It's very clear that George loves Hedda more than she loves him. She even disregarded the word love when she was talking to Lovborg , "'whom you [hedda] - love.' 'Love? What an idea!"' George would do almost anything to please his wife, even if it meant large sums of money, and Hedda could really care less, but obviously wouldn't let him figure that out.
I actually loved Hedda's character. She was born into a very wealthy and successful family, just to end up "getting by". She is a big fish in a small pond and continues to want more. When the thought of her social "game" was threatened by Judge Brack and George, we see her sort of 'devilish' side come out, also when she spoke to Thea, trying to become friends with her and then turning on her instead. She's a very manipulative and sly character and uses that to get what she wants. Despite the easily seen 'evil' side of Hedda, I do pity her. She married a man that she didn't love and didn't deserve her, and was living unhappily in an average life. Due to the social fear, she couldn't branch out, leave Tesman, and live her 'bourgeoisie' life how she truly wanted to.
With that isolation, I feel that she did go a little bit psycho, especially when she was just "shooting at the air" around Judge Brack. She went as far as to burn Lovborg's book, hand him a gun leading him to kill himself, and then ultimately to her own demise. She felt that her lifestyle and social life was being threatened so she took (extreme) actions to cope.
Overall, this probably one of my favorite plays!
Teagan Connelly
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI've been debating with myself as to which event is the climax of the play. I'm pretty sure it's either the conversation between Hedda, Lovborg, and Elvsted where true feelings begin to show, or it's when Hedda burns Lovborg's manuscript. Or maybe i'm just entirely off. But after some thought, I fairly confident it's the manuscipt-burning bit.
My reasoning is that it seems like after this event, things really begin to go downhill for Hedda. Previously, she was sort of coasting along in her new life despite her non-existent love for her husband. People still thought of her as an innocent little angel. This image was maintained for the most part, but once the book is burned and the pistol is given to Lovborg, Lovborg commits suicide and Hedda is on the brink of losing everything. With Brack ready to use his newfound dirt on Hedda to extort her, she kills herself. None of this would have happened without the burning of the manuscript.
Though I could be wrong; the conversation between Hedda, Elvsted, and Lovborg also marked a point in Hedda's gradual decline. It was from here that Elvsted learned Hedda's true perspective. This was when her innocence began to diminish, marking the beginning of her end.
Regardless, I'm pretty sure it's one of these events. Feel free to disagree with me.
- Josh Quimby
Hi Josh,
DeleteThe climax of the play occurs when Hedda burns the manuscript. Since it is a four-act play the climax occurs around the end of the third act. In the context of this story, it is the first major action that Hedda takes. All of the events preceding this establish characters and context for her action. The scene itself has an air of finality to it, with the image of Hedda cackling intently in front of a fire as she declares, "I am burning your child." The events spiral out of control after this with Eilert's messy death and, ultimately, Hedda's suicide. After the burning of the manuscript, the deaths of Eilert and Hedda are almost inevitable, making them part of the resolution of the conflict.
I hope this cleared some things up.
-Kalina Bonofiglio
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteThroughout the course of the play, Hedda engages in some heavy flirtation with Judge Brack, and even a bit with Eilert, yet she declares she will not be unfaithful to George. Is it possible that Hedda is "cheating" on her husband without ever having sex with anyone else? Maggie briefly touched on this in an earlier comment about how she doesn't love Tesman, but made a commitment to not cheat on him. In these instances, is Hedda cheating on him or is she within her boundaries to be a little flirtatious with other men.
- Stephen Sutton
Hi Stephen,
DeleteI do believe that Hedda is still cheating on George despite the lack of sexual interaction. She is a creature of the pressures of society, in fact almost all of her actions were related to her inability to overcome the fear of going against it and ruining her social standing and image. From her manipulation to her marrying of George, including her interactions with Lovborg and Brack, all her actions are intended to keep a low profile while allowing Hedda to live through those around her. Throughout the play Hedda had no sexual interactions with Brack or Lovborg. I believe that this was due to her desire to keep a low profile to avoid accusations of unfaithfulness and the condemnation of her actions by others of high social standing. If Hedda was not pressured by society I believe that she would have fully cheated on George and because of this her flirting, in the end, is the same as cheating.
-Teddy Fischer
Hi Stephen and Teddy,
DeleteI agree with Teddy's opinion that Hedda's flirtatious interactions with other men are a form of unfaithfulness to her husband. I would consider this to be true no matter how strong her relationship was with George, but the fact that Hedda and George do not have a sexual relationship with each other makes this point even more true. Their interactions between each other throughout the play are never truly flirtatious, and the extent of the love they show one another comes from George practically waiting on Hedda. If they were engaging in sex with each other, flirting may not seem as quite as big of a deal from a big picture view. However, since this is not the case, flirting is practically the most romantic thing that Hedda and George share, so by extending her flirtations beyond her relationship with her husband, Hedda is surely proving that she does not truly care for George and that she wishes to be with another man, which, in essence, is cheating.
I just realized I spelled Judge Brack's name wrong multiple times in that post! Sorry, my bad.
DeleteOk, well that comment above went on the wrong post sorry about that..
DeleteAny who, I do agree that Hedda was cheating on George in this play. While everyone has different "standards" of what is cheating and what isn't, considering Hedda and George were married, it changed the 'rules'. They both made a vow to stand by each other and love them until death, which was premature in Hedda's case. But when Hedda goes out of her way to flirt with Lovborg and Judge Brack, more than she does with her own husband, it's cheating, even if she's just being manipulative. Hedda was well aware of her relationship yet she went behind her husband's back to get what she wanted, to get more of what she already had. The immense amount of jealously Hedda had for Lovborg and Thea's 'baby' also showed that she yearned for a relationship stronger than the one she was already in.
Teagan Connelly
Hey guys,
DeleteI don't see it as necessarily "cheating", but more of dabbling in the idea of getting out of the general expectation of women in this time period. Throughout the play, we've seen Hedda's rebellious nature and how she's trying so hard to break the shell of the typical aristocratic woman and into her idea of how she wants to live. I believe she wants to leave Tesman, but can't because she is still supposed to be a housewife.She realizes that she can't because he is a pawn to her image. Without a dominant male next to her, she cannot be taken seriously in society.
Her "flirtations" are her temporarily leaving her lifestyle, but she cannot fully "cheat" because if she does, she will ruin the potential person she is trying to become by manipulating Tesman and the family she has around her.
-James Heaney
Hey everyone!
ReplyDeleteI have been considering the symbolic nature of the pistols which cause the deaths of Lovborg and Hedda. I believe that the pistols are an extension of Hedda's being--and her need for control.
The aforementioned set of pistols belonged to Hedda's grandfather, the General, long before they came into Hedda's possession. They are a set--they are meant to be kept together. The fact Hedda favors her grandfather's pistols as a way to stave off boredom shows that she is closer to him and to the Gabler family than she is to her husband and the Tesman family. (This is why I believe that this play is titled Hedda Gabler instead of Hedda Tesman, but that is beside the point for this post...). Her pistols represent her connection to aristocracy and power. This is first demonstrated when Hedda carelessly fires in the direction of Judge Brack. She feels a sense of control in the fact that she can take his life if she pleases.
I believe that Hedda's gift to Lovborg of one of her pistols is a highly significant act. Hedda gives away some of her power in the hopes that Lovborg will take his own life "beautifully." I believe that from the moment Hedda first breaks up the set, she intends to kill herself with the other pistol. She sees beauty in the thought that both she and Lovborg will take their lives with twin guns, so she is willing to give away something which is obviously very important to her. She knows that she can have ultimate control over Lovborg's life by orchestrating his suicide, and this excites her. Because Hedda only takes her life after she learns that this attempt at control was unsuccessful, the pistols are a symbol of her control over herself and others. Hedda's last act in the play is to use the pistol she has left to take her own life. This is her final act of control to ensure that Brack cannot manipulate her.
To Hedda, the pistols inherited from her grandfather are a physical reminder that she has power over others.In gifting them and using them, Hedda is enabled to effect great change in the play.
Hello everybody,
ReplyDeleteWhile reading and after finishing this book, I couldn't help but think that almost all the characters in this play were unlikable. In english class last year, my class discussed a few novels said to be in the same boat-- notoriously, The Great Gatsby. I know that this statement is subjective, but to me all the characters in Ibsen's play seemed either too manipulative, too arrogant, too self-absorbed, or even too insignificant to be able to genuinely like them. I'm sure you all can see where I am coming from in regards to characters such as Hedda, Brack, and Tesman, but even the character, Thea, who is meek, seeming to let her life fall to fate rather than taking charge for herself, seems mildly obnoxious. Although, this could just be me having a negative outlook. What do you guys think? Are there any characters that really resonated with you throughout the novel? If not, do you think that Ibsen purposely crafted his characters to be "unlikable"? Personally, I believe these character flaws are an intentional way to create a more realistic and dramatized play.
- Kaitlyn Bedard
DeleteHello Kaitlyn,
DeleteThe behavior of certain characters and their attitudes are definitely not likable. There is not one character you instantly think of that can be thought of as a genuine, likable character. I think Ibsen designed the play in this manner to describe how broken Hedda's life and family situation is. As a person, she's borderline mentally insane, but the contributing outside factors may also add on to her awful personality and affect her negatively.
Additionally, the plot was affected with these characters. Without Eilert committing suicide with the pistols Hedda gave him, Hedda would never have killed herself and the ending would be completely different. The plot was specifically structured by this dysfunctional set of characters, and it would definitely not make sense any other way.
-James Heaney
Hi Kaitlyn and James,
DeleteI agree with your points about how all of the characters are not extremely likable. None of them stand out as "good people" who have genuine intentions. Because of this, all of them can be interpreted in many different ways by the reader. It can be justified to sympathize with, despise, or feel indifferent towards any one of them. As James pointed out, I believe that the play was successful largely due to this set of uniquely complex characters. Ibsen brilliantly creates powerful, yet not clearly defined, figures in this play and this leaves a lot of unknown throughout the story.
-Ali Soucy
Hello Kaitlyn, James, and Ali
DeleteI agree that the characters in this play seem to be unlikeable, but as stated earlier I agree that Isben most likely did it on purpose. Like James had said the plot was completely affected by the personalities of these characters. The play would not have been as successful if he had wrote it with completely normal characters. Without the character flaws this play would have been significantly different than what it is. They would have handled situations differently thus creating a turn of events. For example, if Hedda was honest about what had happened to the papers, the future of Tesman and the other characters would've changed dramatically, but as stated before none of the characters are truly genuine.
Hi all,
DeleteWhile I agree that many of the main characters in this play are largely unlikable, I noticed that the characters who play no part in the creation of the problems of the story are quite likable. Aunt Rina never appears in the play directly--the audience only knows that she is an "invalid" who made Tesman his favorite pair of slippers. Because she is never directly involved in the "drama" of the story, she is never characterized as antagonistic at any point. Her contributions to the play and to her community are only positive. This is interesting, as she is a sick woman who cannot be reasonably expected to put others before herself.
Another example of a minor character who is characterized only positively is Berta. Berta only wishes to make the Tesmans happy: she takes care of George, who she has all but raised, and she fears that she will not be able to serve Hedda sufficiently. Throughout the novel, she is seen changing the temperature or light conditions of the house (opening the window, offering to tend to the fire) in order to make Hedda comfortable. Hedda sees Berta's action (or lack thereof) in these circumstances as bothersome and speaks poorly of Berta. Because the audience knows that Berta's actions are well-intentioned, we feel sympathy for her and view her positively. We have no reason to view her negatively as she has no connection to the play's central "drama." It is interesting that a servant is written in a more positive light than Hedda, a former aristocrat with important connections.
I believe that these two are some of the only characters without any negative associations because they are low in their societal hierarchy. I believe that Ibsen is commenting on the idea that money and status are not what is important. This play is a tragedy because none of the main characters have control over their own lives. In contrast, Rina and Berta are content to be able to control others by making them happy. Neither character truly experiences tragedy because they do not focus on personal gain. Although Rina does pass away during the course of the play, many characters close to her count this as a blessing--Rina had been suffering with her illness, and her death brings her rest.
Hi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteSo one thing about Eilert's murder truely stood out to me as interesting. When Judge Brack first tells them about his death, he says that it is a suicide and that he had shot himself in the heart. Afterwards though, he reveals that it had actually been a murder. Do you think that Judge Brack telling Thea that Eilert had shot himself in the heart could've been symbolism? I believe that he did this to somewhat sooth the mind of Thea, and that in a way, Eilert had been shot in the heart when him manuscript was lost and subsequently burned. It could also reference how Eilert had lost Thea after telling her that the manuscript was gone, with her saying "how could you destroy a child. Anyways I want to hear what you all think about this certain interaction.
-Liam Files
I think Brack saw it as a way to honor Eilert's memory- it's somewhat poetic to die in the way the Brack originally said he did, but the way he actually died could be seen dishonorable. I think that this discrepancy can also be cited as the final straw for Hedda, as we know that she ended up doing what she thought he did.
DeleteAbby Davidson
Greetings Liam, Abby...
DeleteI am quite intrigued by the symbolism that you found in Brack's first story of Lövborg's death. I hadn't gave that scene much thought.
I think it's worth pointing out here that the first person in the room to mention suicide is Hedda herself. I see Brack's words more as a reaction to Hedda's almost macabre remarks, and her strange lack of shock and remorse. Since he clearly came mainly to convey all of the details (and their implications) to Hedda, I would assume that he picked up on Hedda's strange manner and suspected that Hedda gave Lövborg the pistol. Therefore, the invented story probably served primarily as a vehicle to talk to Hedda alone.
If you're not convinced that Brack's actions were this calculated, Ibsen describes Brack as "keeping his eyes fixed on her" while affirming Hedda's suicide guess (65). He also is described as hesitating before recounting Lövborg's death, and Ibsen's use of dashes here reinforce this.
Of course, much of the evidence cited above only correlates to my assumptions. And it's worth mentioning that regardless of Brack's intent, Ibsen himself clearly wanted to convey this symbolism.
- Ben Free
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading through the play I kept trying to read into Hedda's motives and find a reason for what Hedda's end goal was/ what she had been trying to achieve. This was mostly the case when she burned and lied about Eilert's manuscript. The play showed it as a way to manipulate Tesman into thinking that she did it for him and that she truly loved him but it kept feeling like that wasn't what she had initially planned for because the play makes sure to note that Hedda suppressed her smile, possibly showing that she hadn't entirely prepared this plan but was excited to get something out of it. With all of the mystery around Hedda's actions and what she wanted, what do you think could've been Hedda's end goal?
-Nick Bezzina
Hello Nick,
DeleteHedda's motive for why she does what she does during the play puzzled me as well. In all honesty, I believe that Hedda envied anyone who had more control over their lives than she did. Her and Lovborg have a past of being crazy together, but Hedda is unable to be wild anymore. Hedda has to now be a good housewife, tell the servants what to do, and now she has a baby on the way. She doesn't have the choice to do what she desires like Lovborg. Lovborg can go out and get wasted or run away to another country. He doesn't have a family holding him back. By destroying his manuscript, she wasn't trying to get on Tesman's good side, but get revenge on someone who has the life she so desires. She got to take control of the manuscript and then she got control of Lovborg. Lovborg doesn't know that Hedda destroyed the manuscript, but she gains control by having a say in his death. Hedda loved that she has a say in this beautiful death because she doesn't have much say in anything around her now that she's married. Hedda's mind was run by envy and her goal was to gain control and get revenge on those whose lives were like the one she wanted.
-Alyssa Carneiro
Hi Nick and Alyssa,
DeleteNick, I can connect with your struggles to finding the real motives behind Hedda's actions and Alyssa, I agree with your reasoning being that Hedda is envious for control. I also think that Hedda acts out of desperation in her attempts to gain control. We rarely see Hedda make the first move against someone else. Her boredom with her marriage and past can attribute to her curiosity with Mrs. Elvsted's relationship with Eilert Lovborg. After being given enough information, Hedda then proceeds to take the manuscript in her own hands and control Eilert's fate. Hedda is desperate to make her life more exciting and worth something after downgrading to marrying George Tesman. She quickly uses other people's problems as a way to enhance her own life. Hedda never scrambles to find information, but lets everyone come to her, as we see the majority of the play takes place in her own house. Her hierarchy is made clear from the beginning, and she works her way around the town without ever having to step foot off her property. Hedda is desperate to show dominance over the life she is brought into, and this fuels her desire for controlling others.
-Jordan Bonadies
Hello all,
DeleteNick you bring up a very interesting point with us not knowing what Hedda's final goal may have been. I found that to be an interesting point because of how she had many actions in her past that ultimately ended up with her committing suicide and causing someone else to die. I agree with Jordan in how Hedda may have been very envious for control and she didn't know what to do when she couldn't gain control so her acts became somewhat desperate.
So I've been wondering about the psychology of Hedda. At times, she seems almost apathetic, but at others she expresses passionate bouts of emotion. I wonder if there was something about how she was raised or the society she was raised in that affected her psyche from a young age. I find it interesting how she interacts with all of the other characters-like she is putting on a mask for each. This is somewhat of a normal human behavior, as we all act differently around different people. But I feel that Hedda takes this to an extreme, going from loving wife with Tesman to scheming with the Judge.
ReplyDeleteI am most curious about her actions at the end of the play, mostly of her burning the manuscript, reaction to Lovborg's death, and ultimate suicide. She obviously sees what the manuscript means to Thea and Lovborg, and yet when she sees their reactions, she holds back and only thinks of herself. When she hears about Lovborg's death, she is disgusted by how it happened, and is fixated on it. Before she hears all the details, she thinks of it as "beautiful", and almost imagines a scenario in her mind of how it happens. When she does it herself, she does it in a way that she perceives as beautiful (through the heart).
I wonder why she romanticizes suicide like this in that way. As Mr. MacArthur has stated, she was raised by her father, but there is no mention of her mother. Perhaps her mother committed suicide in such a fashion, and when young Hedda found out, she almost idolized it? Hedda is still somewhat young, but is still an adult. Children see suicide as a way out of their problems, but don't think about the permanence or severity of their action. Meanwhile, adults tend to see it as the only remaining option, and will think it through. This leads me to wonder if Hedda is immature for her age, or perhaps there is something amiss in her mind. She seems to view suicide in a distorted, fantasized way, not typical of a mature adult.
I know this is late in the game, but does anyone have any thoughts? Especially if you have taken a psychology class.
Abby Davidson
Hi Abby!
DeleteWhen I was reading this play I was wondering the same. I think the ultimate reason why she committed suicide was to escape her troubles in life. I don't think psychologically there is something wrong with her, but instead, I believe that she is just immature for her age. Instead of trying to sort through her troubles she decides to take her life without thinking of the consequences behind her actions. I think that when she was raised by just her father it caused her to grow up more masculine then feminine. She was raised without a maternal figure to guide her in her life, which I believe is the reason she acts so immature. I believe that when she finally reached adulthood she was not ready to take on the role of being a woman and a wife. Also, during the time period this play was set, men were seen as being more superior than women. Maybe because of the way Hedda was just raised by her father she grew up thinking that she was superior to everyone else. This can also explain why she was manipulative and controlling. At the end of the play Hedda felt trapped and overwhelmed by the rest of the characters. I think Hedda felt defeated when she no longer felt that she was superior to everyone else. I believe that because of the way she was raised she didn't know who she was supposed to be which led to her lashing out and anger. Ultimately, I believe that growing up without a mother led her to feel confused about herself. The way Hedda committed suicide leads me to believe that she was very immature since she didn't think about her actions.
Katie Bzowyckyj
I absolutely adored this play far more than I expected. It is definitely because of my love for character pieces, as I grew older, my love for these grew since I gained (somewhat) of an ability to understand deeper meanings in these stories, symbols and such that all center around this one character.
ReplyDeleteAs I do with many pieces I read or watch, I like to go online and hear other people's often more developed thoughts which often spark more thoughts of my own, which was just the case when I watched the channel National Theatre Discover's video entitled "Playing Hedda Gablar" on Youtube. In this video, cast members of the 2016 adaptation of the play discuss the character of Hedda and one of the first lines spoken by Ruth Wilson, the woman playing Hedda, she mentions how the director prepped her for this role by saying this was a "suicide play" with no elaboration. Wilson herself did not exactly know what he meant by that, but I may have an idea or two.
Hedda is very interesting to read about to me because of her wild behavior, it's something I can rather admire, how someone can not care to a level that she does. This lack of care is more of a cover up for a repression she feels, repression by her society. In layman's terms, she wants to do things that as a woman in Norway at that time she was denied by standards. She wants power in her life, which she is denied, in some ways. In ways she may not think about, she has power over people by being gorgeous, whether we like to acknowledge it or not, humans often are drawn to people more appealing looking unconsciously, whether that be lust or admiration to be that person. But this isn't enough for Hedda, she wishes she had the freedom that men had, freedom of who she can be with or go out and do, but she simply does not have that. I see her as a dam with cracks forming in it, the dam feels like it's about to break but not enough, there's water leaking but it's not enough. Hedda uses these men who are attracted to her as a scapegoat of sorts for her wild tendencies, feeling powerful pointing guns at them and such. In a way she is stripping the men's power from themselves, making her feel like she is in control for once in her life, making her feel alive in a way. All these wild actions I believe add to her suicide, she is acting in this way not because she is planning on killing herself and is just doing whatever she pleases, rather, she doesn't care to such a level that her own life does not matter to her. So when I hear that this is a "suicide play," I believe the director meant to say it's about a person's downfall to a point that they do not matter to themselves that they are willing to end their life prematurely, and wanted Wilson to portray that downfall through Hedda's personality.
****KEVIN DOOLEY****
DeleteIn my opinion, her suicide is an act of desperation because she feels that she cannot escape from a disappointing and boring life. Hedda’s sordid situation is largely of her own making, but she will not face reality nor assume responsibility for the consequences of her acts.
DeleteHi Kevin and Gabby!
DeleteI believe her suicide wasn't so much an act of desperation but more so an obvious decision. Hedda knew she would die if she stayed in this society any longer whether it was physical or mental and she simply saw this as the next step. She wasn't a very conflicted character, she had her beliefs and she rolled with them. I think she did what she did because she was trying to do right by herself and no one else, keeping up with her selfish characteristics.
Jillian Fiddler
Hi guys!
DeleteJill, I completely agree with you here. Hedda knows exactly what she is doing when she kills herself. I do not believe that she is solely aiming to escape her boring and seemingly uneventful life. Throughout the play, it is evident that Hedda enjoys being in control. When she commits suicide, she is demonstrating control over her life. Like you said, this is a selfish act that is not unlike her previous actions in the play. She is not considerate of the consequences, mainly regarding how it would affect George. Kevin, while I agree that her life was spiraling out of control, I do not think it is the sole cause of her death. To me, her suicide is an act of defiance. When Judge Brack threatens the possibility of scandal, she immediately responds, saying, “Death rather than that" (Ibsen 140). Brack replies with, "People say such things - but they don't do them" (Ibsen 140). Shortly after this exchange, Hedda kills herself. She sees Brack’s response as a challenge. Hedda doesn’t want to be like other “people”. Brack claims that “people” don’t do things like that, but Hedda is not one who willingly (keyword: willingly) conforms. There is some part of her that wants to break out and truly express who she is.
Hi guys, I agree a lot with what Jill and Kelsey are pointing out in their comments as to how Hedda knew what she was doing when she killed herself. I only wanted to bring up another possible point that I was questioning by the end of the book, and was hoping one of you may have some ideas or answers? I noticed Hedda's fascination with guns early on and how she tends to use them as an escape, or way to release some emotions and tension. When she did not wish to discuss things with others she attempted to use them almost as a threat so that others would be too fearful to question such a short tempered woman at the time. But my thought is that these moments may have also been points at which she was playing with the idea of taking her own life earlier on, and yet she didn't. I believe this may have been because she feared a "scandal" as she would have called it. Therefore when all was "spiraling out of control" like you all mentioned in earlier comments she saw this as an opportunity to leave with less questioning as to why, and maybe her her death would be less of a dramatic happening if it was to be surrounded by other tragedies as well. Let me know your thoughts.
DeleteAmanda Gibbs
Hello everyone,
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this play, I noticed many parallels between Hedda Gabler and the feminist text we read in Mrs. G’s class, The Awakening. First, we have two female characters, Edna and Hedda, restricted by the social and societal structure of their respective settings (late 1800’s New Orleans and Norway). There is also George Tesman, who I believe compares to Edna’s husband, Leonce. While they both seem to care for their wives, they provide mainly material support, and don’t do anything to make their wives feel purposeful. In addition, Eilert is similar to Robert, in my opinion, as they both provide an outlet from their unhappy marriages. Lastly, the obvious parallel, Edna’s suicide by drowning and Hedda’s by shooting herself. Yes, Hedda’s is more violent than Edna’s, but they both do it to escape the endless monotony of their lives, their inability to be independent and self-express. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Also, in what ways do you think these texts are different?
-Eva Riggott
DeleteI noticed the similarities between these two works as well! I believe that Hedda believes that the power to determine when and how one dies is the ultimate freedom, and is perhaps the only real control that an individual has in life. At first, she attempts to prove this vicariously by encouraging Lovborg to have a "beautiful death" - she gives him one of her pistols, essentially pulling all the strings that might make him veer towards suicide. However, when Lovborg dies from an unintended shot to the groin, Hedda realizes that the beautiful death is still a fantasy - and she can only bring it to life for herself. Edna, from The Awakening, struggled with the same concept of having control and power over her own life as well.
DeleteHi everyone,
ReplyDeleteAs I reached the end of the play, I noticed the sort-of ironic comment made by Judge Brack after Hedda's death- "people don't do such things" and how this was very similar to Hedda's comment about the "red-haired singing-woman" who supposedly threatened to shoot Lovborg. Hedda said, "no one does that sort of thing here" with cold composure and certainty. This made me suspect that Hedda would find satisfaction in performing an act so shocking in this stiff society. She despises expected monotony and regrets her "everlasting" commitment to Tesman. Could this be why she did something so drastic? Was her spontaneity suppressed to an unbearable extent? Is it insulting to claim that her suicide was merely an unnerving statement?
-- Kaitlyn Herbst
DeleteHello Ms. Herbst,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post, I could not help but ponder deeply about the true motive behind Hedda's suicide. I believe that her suicide indeed was a rebellious act against the rigid society she was born into. Without a doubt, Hedda as a character is all about making a statement against the pre-existing norms established by the old-wealth class. Unlike Gatsby who admired and desired to join the old-money class, Hedda wants to rise up against it. She romanticizes defiance against society viewing it as noble in a way. She took her own life in a drastic manner to make a statement against the monotonous, dull class she was forced into. Her life was like a boiling tea kettle with steam and pressure building up within because of her lack of an outlet for spontaneity; her suicide the inevitable explosion that occurs to the build up of the repressed steam or in Hedda's case, repressed emotions and desires. In the end, her fear of actually acting out against society in her life climaxed and lead to her death.
What do you all think of this idea? Am I on the right track here?
As always, best wishes
- Ryaan Shaikh
Hi Ms. Herbst and Mr. Shaikh,
DeleteMany other people have mentioned that Hedda's suicide is a last act of control. This is undoubtedly true, but I also believe that it is a way to break free from society. Hedda is extremely interested in Thea's lack of societal conformation: she forces the other woman to divulge the details of her life and nonconformity in order to live vicariously through her. Hedda wishes that she did not have to comply with societal expectations, so she subtly manipulates others to attempt to attain her goals. However, she cannot publicly assert her control for fear of becoming an outcast. In taking her own life, Hedda essentially annuls this issue: she makes her control over her own fate publicly known while making it so that she will not have to deal with the consequences of this choice. Yes, Hedda's motive for suicide is lack of control, but more specifically it is her need to stand out.
Dear Ryaan,
DeleteYour contrast of Hedda to Jay Gatsby stood out to me. I understand that your intent was to point out that Hedda wished to escape the rigid structures of her social class. However, I am of the opinion that using Gatsby as an example is misguided.
Gatsby exists in 1920s America. Hedda exists in 1890s Norway. The contrast between old money and new money so prevalent in The Great Gatsby doesn't apply to Hedda Gabler, since there is no apparent class of new money individuals. The concept of old money and new money, especially as portrayed by Fitzgerald, is uniquely American, and uniquely 1920s.
Besides, if there was a new money class in Hedda's world, wouldn't her struggles against the rigid confines of her social class be diminished? With Gatsby-esque parties and affairs, wouldn't her need to rebel be satisfied?
I admire your attempt to connect works studied in different classes, but I find this specific example unfounded, even irrelevant.
Cordially,
Ben Free
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteAll the points that have been made about Tesman's aunts are correct. I particularly found Kalina's and Gavin's comments regarding the contrast of emotion between Hedda and Tesman very interesting. Tesman -being raised by two very influential women- embodies both very thoughtful, and pleasing attributes. This is seen through how Tesman always wants to make people happier. He is a very compassionate man by providing Hedda with a costly honeymoon that she had to have. He then bought a wonderful house that Hedda had wanted. With this endless giving, Hedda doesn't seem to give much back at all. Like Mike had said previously, Hedda didn't give any remorse to Tesman when his job was being threatened. Throughout the play, Hedda likes having control over people and making use of her manipulation. This could be due to the way she was raised, as the play itself didn't go into her side of the family. Tesman's and Hedda's relationship could be seen as a sort of one way give and take.
-Andrew Lavertu
Hi Andrew, I would like to address your comment about what Mike had said previously, where there was no remorse towards Tesman when his when his job was being threatened. I agree that there was no remorse, however I believe that rather than remorse there was a fear for him. She felt threatened by the loss of his job as well. Hedda, being a woman of high social status, needs to live by a certain standard of comfort, and when Tesman's job was being threatened by the success of Lovborg she felt the need to protect their fortune. She saw Lovborg's manuscript as an opportunity to further her own husbands success by destroying Lovborg's chances of success. It may have been a cruel act towards Lovborg, but it was almost and act of caring towards her own husband. She felt the need to protect their standard of life because she knew Tesman was too kind of a man to take the measures she did.
Delete- Amanda Gibbs
DeleteHi everyone,
ReplyDeleteThere are a few things about Hedda's pregnancy that confused me. First, Tesman seems blissfully unaware that Hedda is pregnant. He suggests that she has "filled out," but when his aunt hints he will have a new use for a spare room (implying the baby) he agrees and says he'll be able to expand his ever-growing library. He would understand what his aunt was implying if the child was his. He also spent the entirety of his honeymoon studying to become a doctor at some foreign university, not spending time with his new wife. Lovborg's relationship with Hedda was never intimate--she threatened to shoot him first. If it's neither of these, whose child is it?
Secondly, partly becasue I can't figure out who the father would be, I have a nagging doubt that Hedda's pregnant at all. When Brack makes a suggestion toward "new responsibilities" for her, she snaps, "Nothing of that sort will ever happen!" This could be her denying one more element of her life that is trapping her, but it leads me to doubt. What if everyone is assuming that Hedda is pregnant after her honeymoon, but she really isn't? Perhaps she is confined by the idea that she will have to eventually have a child to please everyone.
Her pregnancy doesn't drastically effect the plot, as its not mentioned more than in passing, but it does bring up some moral questions at the end of the story. We know that Hedda sees no problem with killing children in the scene where she destroys the manuscript, envisioning it to be a child. Being pregnant wouldn't stop her from committing suicide, but it would place her action into a distinctly different category of "immoral."
I think Isben left this purposely ambiguous, but I'm interested to hear other thoughts.
-Kalina Bonofiglio
Hi Kalina,
DeleteI had a feeling that throughout the play Hedda was pregnant. Several references to her being pregnant were made and I assumed that because she denied it so many times, or brushed it off, that she wasn't. Looking at her personality and her character traits, Hedda tends to lie quite often. It is possible that she could have been pregnant, but it was definitely not George's baby. Their relationship was empty, let alone their physical one. Hedda only married him because it was the only option she had. Even George was shocked to find out that Hedda had burned the manuscript for him. He thought that was how she showed her love for him.
Also, Judge Brack's final line in the play was "Good God! - people don't do such things." Although he is in shock from finding her dead, he also might have said this because he thought she was pregnant. By saying "people" he is automatically dehumanizing her for what she did. A pregnant person killing themselves is something that is so unheard of that it could only be done by something that is inhuman.
I have a suspicion that the father is either Judge Brack or Eliert Loveborg. Those are the only two people who could have had an affair with her. Judge Brack clearly shows interest in Hedda throughout the play. He constantly was flirting with her and saying things like: "...I should have come a little - earlier." when Hedda told him that her husband left to go to his Aunt Julia's. Eliert doesn't really show any interest in her, but in the end when he dies, she also commits suicide. This could be a sign that she loved him in a way, but there are probably more reasons to her sudden death.
Hey stephen!
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a really interesting point as to why Hedda ended up taking her own life. I had not thought about how the baby could have been a major factor toward her suicide, but it totally makes sense considering her personality. As it's been said, Hedda felt trapped by society and social norms, so much so that she was not even in love with her own husband. Hedda was beyond her time and was unfit for caring for a child. I think she felt completely trapped as it was and could not handle the pressure of being a mother. If you recall from last year in Mrs. Gredinsky’s class, we read a book called The Awakening, and the main character Edna, greatly reminded me of Hedda. Both were overwhelmed by the pressure women had placed on them many years ago, especially to have children. They felt the only way out of the social pressure was suicide. In my opinion, they were both trying to escape the, now outdated, typical role of women and suicide was their only way out. As I am sure many of you will agree, these women taking their own lives was taking back their freedom.
Hi Liz,
DeleteI agree with everything that you mentioned about Hedda's death. Personally, I think that she killed herself because she felt so constrained in the world she was living in. Also, she clearly thought that suicide was a beautiful form of death. She also could have killed herself because she wanted to be with Loveborg in the afterlife (maybe??). To me, she didn't show very much interest in him, but based on her personality, she probably displays her affection in a different way then most people.
I also was wondering: at what point did Hedda decide to kill herself? Was it before or after she gave her Grandfather's pistol to Loveborg? It could have potentially been when she heard the news from judge Brack that Loveborg was dead. Or she could have decided to do it just because she saw the gun laying out in the open at the end of the play (after she gave one away).
Hi Jenna,
DeleteThank you for bringing up that excellent question relating to Hedda's suicide. Since Hedda has entangled herself so intimately in Lovborg's destiny, she must have decided to kill herself the moment she handed him the pistol. We know that Hedda values her pistols for the power they give her, and I think she would only be willing to give one up if she was considering ending her own life with the other.
Secondly, because Hedda is a sort of parasite to Lovborg, I simply can't see her living without him. She depends on his life to feed hers, as we saw the night he went out to the party. Without this connection to the outside world, Hedda would feel increasingly constrained. After her honeymoon, Hedda is detached and bored. When Lovborg comes back, her life gets infinitely more exciting, and I can’t picture Hedda willingly subjecting herself to living that boring life again. It’s not her style.
It makes sense that Hedda would ensure Lovborg completed her crime before ending her own life, as this would establish her as the one in control of the incident, even if she's the only one who knows the truth about it. When Brack brings her details of Lovborg's death, it simply gives her the perfect opportunity to act on a decision she had previously made.
-Kalina Bonofiglio
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on Hedda throughout the play were that she is a terrible person. From not actually loving her husband to encouraging Ejlert to kill himself, it could be said that she is a terrible person. Out of all of the terrible things that she says and does in the story, I feel that the worst is when she is disgusted with how the way Ejlert dies. However, after thinking about Hedda after finishing the play, I feel like all I can do is respect her as a character. Even though she is a terrible person, I have to respect the ability she had to be able to manipulate the people around her anyway she could in order to benefit herself. The best example of this in the play would be her relationship with George. She manipulated him so that she could get anything she wanted. In the end, I respect Hedda's "hustle" even though if effected the people around her in a negaive way.