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."]
The more I think about this play, the more I like it. It's so open to interpretation.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I see Hedda as a terrible person and a terrific character--it'd be a curse to know her as a person, but it's a blessing to know her as a character.
SPOILER ALERT
1) Does this play qualify as a tragedy? Sure, the circumstances are a collector's edition of Really Not Great™, but hey: Hedda finally escapes the unbearable tedium that is her life, Lovborg conveniently bypasses having to cope with his monumental loss, and everyone is rid of both Hedda, with her malicious meddling, and Lovborg, with his scandalous past (and...unstable, let's say?...nature). On top of that, the Book That Could Change It All is back from the dead--and, even better, this time it's going to be published by oh-so-respectable Tesman, whose utter devotion to being a bore has ensured that his sanity and reputation are much more intact than Lovborg's, thus leaving the book less vulnerable to criticism. Win-win-win-win, right? Call me crass, but looks to me like everything's wrapped up.
Okay, enough of that. It wouldn't be a classic if the reader weren't privy to some sort of devastating realization, right, so, of course, this play is tragic--if for no other reason, because of Lovborg's suicide. His death was one giant "alas": upon the calculation of aftermath, we discover that it was unnecessary, since his treasured Manuscript of Potential can be revived ("Oh, wait! Still got 'em notes! Sweeeeet!"). I mean, there's ouch, and then there's OUCH.
2) Love? Typical element, right? So where is it? Or is everyone (and by everyone, I mean Hedda) too immersed in Machiavellianism?
Again, as Alicia said, SPOILERS: I've got to agree with you. Everything did wrap up pretty "nicely", if you'd call it that. Hedda got to mould a mans' destiny like she wanted and Lovborg didn't have to live with his reputation being ruined a second time. Not to mention, Tesman can publish a book with some actual promise and he has the help of Mrs. Elvsted, too. I would also consider this play a bit of a tragedy, but unlike other tragedies, I felt no emotional response when either Lovborg or Hedda died. What a pity.
DeleteNow, while there was an abundance of Machiavellianism, I thought the play did have love as an element, although it was definitely not displayed in a typical fashion, like other famous plays. There are various forms of love: the love a mother has for her child, the love between friends, lovers, etc. Love is not concrete, and it is apt to change as people change. While I believe Hedda is not a good example of love in this play, I would say there is certainly some love to be found. Aunt Julia loved Tesman and Aunt Rina very much, and in turn they felt the same for her. Mrs. Elvsted and Lovborg would certainly not be considered lovers by today's standards, but the late 1800's is another matter. Lack of intimacy does not mean there was a lack of emotional and mental connection, which is what real love is based on. To me, this play is no shining example of a romance story, but it is a love story.
To touch on one of Alicia’s points, I do not believe this play can be considered a tragedy. We’ve studied what makes something a tragedy before, but I decided to refresh myself on what a tragic story really is. While there are a few different definitions, one of the definitions I found was, “Tragedy, branch of drama that treats in a serious style the sorrowful or terrible events encountered or caused by a heroic individual” (Britannica.com). When I read this, I knew it couldn’t be a tragedy. One of my first issues was Hedda wasn’t a heroic individual. In my perspective, Hedda was weak and cowardly. She didn’t save anyone, in fact, she ruined people’s lives. She was so self-centered and made so many people miserable. She was hardly a hero. The next issue I had, was none of the events in the story were terrible or sorrowful. Hedda’s death was exactly what she asked for. Suicide in her eyes was beautiful and optimal. She was meant to die. I didn’t find Lovborg’s death tragic either. It was necessary to the story and the fact that his possible death by suicide ended up being an accident was slightly humorous. Overall, I could see why some would argue it was a tragedy, but I do not believe it is one.
DeleteAlthough I'm not sure I would categorize Hedda as a hero I would like to play the devil's advocate for a moment. Let's take into consideration of the time period and why she wanted to marry in the first place. It is socially correct for women in this time to marry and her intentions were to be a prominent academic's wife. She did not marry out of love or even physical attraction. Could it be seen as heroic of her to sacrifice her emotions to fill into society's norms?
DeletePerhaps it could be heroic to sacrifice yourself to fit into society, but I don't think so. I believe that Hedda was out of options, and had to get married to who she could, but nothing seemed heroic in doing so. She was sacrificing her happiness, but I almost think that Hedda didn't know what made her happy, unlike Eustacia, who knew that "love, art, music, war," among other things made her happy. To me, a hero is someone who does something to benefit the greater good, but Hedda was just trying to benefit herself by fitting in, and getting married did no one any good except for herself, and it only benefited her in status.
DeleteI like that you pointed that out, Holly. I think Hedda can actually be seen as a very strong woman. She had the pistols all along, but seemed to be waiting for a time when her destruction seemed inevitable to strike. I don't think her heroic act is sacrificing her emotions to fit into society, but there is definitely more to her. One thing that I think some people might be ignoring is that there is more to tragedy than setting. True, Hedda isn't in the best environment, but the situation isn't the only thing that can be tragic about a story. If this is tragedy, it sure isn't tragedy, shrink-wrapped and sloppily shelved. It's tragedy that grows with every action Hedda takes, every cruel deadpan she delivers. Essentially, Hedda has made a monster of herself, one addicted to the vice that is control. The more she fights to survive, the more she acts like someone who is unworthy of life. She tries to keep her head above the water by pushing others down, but this just turns them against her, increasing her chances of being sabotaged. This is a bit of a weak analogy, but it might help to see Hedda as a chess player. She sacrifices her queen (Lovborg), but since her king (Tesman) is still standing, she hasn't lost. However, faced with Brack's will-I-tell-or-will-I-not, she forfeits anyway. Hedda's pretty crafty, so I'm sure she stood a chance against Brack even if he did spill, but we'll never find out now.
DeleteAlex, you saying "getting married did no one any good except for herself" got me thinking, and I realized that if Hedda had not interfered, Tesman would not be the one to publish the world-changing book, Lovborg would. Respectable as he may be, we all know Tesman is no match for Lovborg.
Almost finished with the book, going into part 4 later...I have to agree with Alicia, Hedda is an awful person. Completely wrapped up in herself, bored, and vain. The play however is a great study of her character. The play is not my cup of tea but it's well written.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I do think the story is not a tragedy nor a traditional love story so far. It's more a "finding oneself" story. Hedda, Lovborg and Elvsted are all trying to find meaning, through tragedy with the last 2 and value with Hedda. I'm sure Hedda will change someone's destiny, but after Elvsted's first marriage, I hope Lonborg and her stay together, as they have a type of intimacy. I also predict Hedda might intervene into one or both of the two. The Judge is the only character who is out of place to me. He is kind of an observer, but he lacks the same problems as the remaining characters. He'll probably get some sort of "last laugh." And Tesman is a counter example, as he lacks the depth or character issues of the others, but as a result, he really is the only one not suffering, more blissfully unaware.
Continued later...
I agree with Griffin's response in the fact that the story deals with "finding oneself". Hedda was slowly unraveled throughout the book and became known as the bold and influential woman of the play. She reminds me of Edna Pontellier in The Awakening written by Kate Chopin. Both characters went on through life as though they were lost. Both also knew that they could never be happy unless they lived the life they wanted for themselves and not what others wished for them. Hedda was a life coach for all the people that surrounded her, Tesman and Eilert especially. She hoped they could live their lives beautifully or end them in the same manner. She gave Eilert the pistol and told him to be bold, while after he shot himself, I think Hedda had the realization that to be up to her own standards, she had to act in the same manner. Furthermore, Edna was surrounded her whole life by the people she wanted to be specifically the women in her life such as Mademoiselle Reisz and Adele Ratignolle who were perfect women in the aspect of being a mother or just having good morals. She couldn't figure out who she was as an individual and felt that suicide was her only escape. On another note, she also was married, but was in love with another man whom she knew she couldn't be with, so there was no way for her to be happy. Both characters resorted to suicide on their journey of finding themselves because they saw that this was their only means of escape. Who they wanted to become would never be a reality.
DeleteNow that I've finished the book, and its been a few weeks,I've been able to think about the ending. It's depressing, but there's alot to think about. Obviously, 2 characters, both in bad situations killed themselves. Hedda killed herself right after changing 2 destinies: Lovborg's for the worst by driving him to it, with manipulation. On the other hand, she makes a good change, by leaving her soon-to-be widower Lovborg's notes for a new book, that he can take the credit for. Then, of course, Hedda has to pay the piper. She has always wanted to change someone's fate, having changed 2, fate in the form of Judge Brack now can blackmail her. Here,the consequences of all the actions from the first act unfold. Hedda is but at the mercy of Brack, leading her to kill herself, while Lovborg kills himself, also thanks to Hedda's meddling. Again, its depressing but you can see and understand the payoff.
DeleteMy main observation is how much Hedda is concerned about image and how she contrasts with Tesman. Both are jealous with Lovborg, but for different reasons. She hates how Elvsted effects Lovborg more beneficially. Tesman, however, is concerned with how he may have to contend for a professorship. However, he never suffers any consequences, because he lacks, or rather has less of, the concern for image and even selfishness many other characters suffer from. He may be a dull bookworm, but he likes it, and never suffers. In fact, he benefits from it as he doesn't get Lovborg's manuscript by stealing it, he gets it from a jealous Hedda. She meanwhile, and Lovborg, and even Elvsted suffer in a triangle: Elvsted loses the light of her life because of Hedda and Hedda ultimately dies due to her meddling with Lovborg's life, with Lovborg only finding sanity and comfort with Elvsted. Tesman never asks for more, and never loses more, unlike the other 2.
Overall, this was a decent play, not my type but a quality read. And now that I've started Native...It looks even better now.
Regarding the story's ending, I do not believe there was any other way to finish the play. As dark as it may seem, nobody would have been satisfied if Hedda was still living by the conlcusion of the piece. This is simply because of how predictable her suicide was. As soon as guns began to associate with emotions, alarm bells should have been going off in everyone's head. It was not a matter of "if" but a question of "when" Mrs. Tesman would make her fatal decision, and if she had not, the story would have been rather anticlimactic.
DeleteI am extremely relieved Ethan commented about how Hedda was meant to die because that was my perspective on the ending too. Originally, I thought I was the only one thinking this because to say it was best for her to kill herself seems way too morbid. However, I am glad to see someone else thought that too. To build off of what Ethan said, I did not think Hedda was ever going to find true happiness. I realized she could never appreciate things in her life (and even her life in general) after she was talking about the house Tessman bought her. Tessman bought her “the house of her dreams”, the one she told him she absolutely loved, and yet we later find out she was just trying to make conversation with him. I know this may seem small, but for me it was an eye opener about how even when people do tremendous things for her, she does not even value them. It seems to me Hedda doesn’t appreciate anything and would never find happiness. She constantly complained about how nothing was good enough and how she did not have what she wanted. Therefore, I completely agree with Ethan’s point that the play had to end like this. She would never find happiness and death was the only way for her to save herself from a life she did not want.
DeleteI also agree that the book would have been incomplete if Hedda had not died. Guns played such a major role in the book. They were present in the book from the beginning and foreshadowed both Hedda's death and Ejlert's death. In act two Hedda was caught playing with a gun and pointing it at people. She seemed to be fascinated with them. Later in the play guns appear again but this time she gives one to Ejlert when she knows that he is planning to commit suicide. She then proceeds to ponder where he will shoot himself. She seems to find beauty in the act which in some ways shows how disturbed her mind is. So if she had not done something with the gun in the end the play would have been like Ethan said, anticlimactic.
DeleteGoing off of what Julia said, Hedda told Lovborg "do it beautifully", as in his death, as she gave him her pistol (118). Hedda constantly imagined a perfect life, like imagining Lovborg at the party with vines in his hair, but she was constantly brought back to her dismal reality, like when she was told that Lovborg didn't have anything in his hair. While this may seem of no importance, it was a simply beauty that Hedda dedicated her daydreaming to that night, and she was thoroughly disappointed when she realized that that beauty didn't exist in the real world. Since she couldn't find any beauty in the real world, she decided to make her own, like she told Lovborg to, by shooting herself in the temple.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am currently on Act 3 and to me this story seems to be like a MeanGirls of the time. Hedda seems much like Regina George in the way that her motives appear as helpful to Thea (the Cady) but are really selfish, backhanded, and downright horribly mean. Does anyone else this comparison as they read?
ReplyDeleteIts funny how you connected Hedda to Regina George becasue while reading the play Hedda Reminded me of someone but I couldnt figure out who. After seeing your comment I completely agree!As the Reader of Hedda Gabbler and the viewer of Mean Girls I know that neither Hedda nor Regina's intention are pure; instead they're spiteful and destructive to the people around them (but Thea, Gretchen, and Karen are unaware as to what is going on). Neither Hedda nor Regina would help Thea Gretchen or Karen if there wasn't something in it for their own gain.
DeleteI can also agree that Hedda can be compared to Regina George. For anyone who has not seen Mean Girls, Regina is a person who is seen to be better than everyone else and she manipulates and controls all others around her in order to get her way, much like what Hedda has done to Mrs. Elvsted and Lovborg. She tricks Mrs. Elvsted into telling her about her secrets of her past and her relationship with her husband as well as the relationship that she has with Lovborg. Hearing of the relationship with both men can lead Hedda to believe that Mrs. Elvsted could have had an affair with him. This gives Hedda control over her and information that she can later try and use against her to destroy the relationships that she has with other characters. Hedda also manipulates Lovborg to begin drinking again by making comments to Elvsted that hint that she came back to town in order to make sure that he did not drink again. Because of his anger after hearing this, he relapsed after 2 years to prove that he can do what he pleases to do and to punish Mrs. Elvsted for following him back to town and not trusting him. Hedda, much like Regina, manipulates the people around her in order to get their way and be in control of everything that is going on around them.
DeleteAllison Salina says:
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing the play, I find myself pondering the same question. I am not sure if I am looking over something obvious or if other people find mystery in this too. My question is this - did Hedda Gabler give Lovborg the gun knowing or wanting him to use it to commit suicide? When she first gave him the gun I thought it to be some sort of closure of their relationship, as if it was her way of letting him go forever. However, after the author revealed that Lovborg had used that exact gun to kill himself, I began to question myself. Knowing Hedda’s devious and manipulative ways, I do not find it impossible to believe that she wanted him to use her ‘gift’ in this treacherous way - that she was so corrupt she wished someone to die and even aided in the process. Looking back at the text and analyzing it more I still cannot find a definitive answer and I was wondering what you all thought about the matter.
After reading and rereading the passage I came to the conclusion that Hedda was looking to aid in his death. She destroyed his "child" without telling him the truth, as well as giving him his own poison the night before in alcohol. She led him down a path of self destruction and then finally gave him the ticket to the end of his life. She was not surprised to hear he used the gun to kill himself, but was instead disappointed that he did kill himself in the way she had pictured it happening. Hedda was calculating all his movements and knew what would happen when she handed him her pistol.
DeleteAt least, that is how I see it.
To respond back to what Allie was saying,I believe Hedda did in fact give Lovborg the gun in hopes that he would kill himself. What made me believe this, were the conversations Hedda had with both Lovborg and Brack. Earlier in the story when Hedda gave Lovborg the gun, she insisted that he died beautifully. After his death she had a conversation with Brack and proceeded to say, “It gives me a sense of freedom to know that a deed of deliberate courage is still possible in this world, a deed of spontaneous beauty” (114). Hedda fell in love with the idea of Lovborg’s death and thought suicide was the ultimate and most beautiful way to die. Overall, this made me strongly believe that Hedda gave Lovborg the gun in hopes that he would use it courageously and kill himself.
DeleteI agree with Julia in that Hedda purposely gave Lovborg the gun in the hopes that he would take his own life. Hedda was bored with her role as a wife to a man she didn't love and as a woman in that time. At the time when she gave him the gun, Hedda didn't have the courage to actually do something and break free of her own monotonous life. She wanted Lovborg to perform a "deed of deliberate courage" to kill himself, for it would help free her from her own distress. I interpreted it as once again another selfish action on Hedda's part in which she put her own desires above everything else.
DeleteIn my personal opinion I believe Hedda gave Eilert the gun hoping that he would kill himself. I think this because Hedda lied to Eilert about his "child", or in other words, the thing that gave his life meaning. She knew that he hadn't lost it because she in fact had it in her possession. Instead of doing the right thing and giving him his manuscript back, she kept it and burned it. When Mr. Tesman found out about her actions he was in utter dismay; so Hedda came up with this absurd explanation as to why she burned it (leaving out the part where she gave Eilert the gun and told him to “ take it- and do use it now….And beautifully, Eilert Lovborg. Promise me that!” (59).) To me, this is proof of Hedda telling Eilert to kill himself.
DeleteI also believe that Hedda gave Lovborg the gun in hope that he would kill himself. She lied to him about having his unpublished manuscript and went along with him thinking he had lost it. After she told him take the gun and "use it now...And beautifully," she burned the book. When she found out he had killed himself, it made her feel a little better, which is a horrible thing.
DeleteI also must agree that Hedda attempted to lead Lovborg to kill himself, but I believe she had this intent from the beginning of the play. Hedda is an extremely bitter woman, who does not want anyone else to find any sort of happiness because she is not happy either. At the initial mention of Lovborg's potential success in the beginning of the play, she immediately turns against him and does not attempt to hide it. Lovborg likely could have been a successful and happy man had Hedda not done all in her power to ruin him and think death was the only option. He certainly had the intelligence and the life to do so, but Hedda was truly out to get him from the beginning. From compelling him to drink through conflict with Mrs. Elvsted and hiding the manuscript from him, she was out to get him for the entirety of the play. It only became blatant when she handed him the gun.
DeleteI agree with everyone that has said that Hedda gave the gun to Lovborg in the intent to have him kill himself. The second he gave him the gun I knew it foreshadowed his suicide. Lovborg was in an interesting place where he was still not satisfied with his life but at the same time was beginning to have hope that things were getting better after he wrote his first book and was working on his second. Hedda, due to her manipulative nature exploited his insecurities that still existed and made him think that suicide was the best and most "courageous" thing he could do. She wanted to ruin his life and convincing him that death was the only option was her way of finishing her devious plan. She throughout the book wants to be in control of everything in her life and feels good when she has control over someone else and this made her excited that she could determine someone's fate.
DeleteIn my opinion, Lovborg had no hope for the future because his public image was tarnished by the Diana incident, his personal joy in the manuscripts was lost, and his love for Hedda was not reciprocated. Lovborg probably would have killed himself without Hedda's "nudge", as the reader can feel the madness in his words.
DeleteI agree with everyone who has said that Hedda gave Lovborg the pistol hoping that he would commit suicide; however, my response is more along the lines of what Julia was saying about the beauty aspect that Hedda saw in this form of death. While Hedda and Lovborg had some sort of relationship in the past that Hedda ended before it became anything serious, I believe that Hedda had some feelings of care and attraction towards Lovborg when seeing him at this present time. Since Hedda didn't see any real beauty in the world, but she had genuine care for Lovborg, she wanted him to be worth something in her eyes and create his own beauty by killing himself.
DeleteThe tragedy of the play does not only seem to be in the Shaksperen death of the two former lovers, but also in the way Hedda Tesman is unable to let go of her former life of flirtation and manipulation. She sees her husband's life as being beneath her and in turn her husband, Tesman is so. She cannot cope with the pregnancy that Aunt Julia was able to pick up on and the fact that she will be stuck in this life forever. There seems to be a lesson hidden in the death of Hedda Tesman; I see it as "no one is too good for the life they are given and we must all come to terms and make the best of every situation we are given"
ReplyDeleteWhat do you all think?
I agree with you Jordan. Hedda couldn't cope with how she would be stuck living her boring life until the day she died. I believe that is why she kills herself. She is so distressed that she will have to live that life, that she wants to end it, and that is why she does.
DeleteTo me, Hedda's death was a little bit of all of those things. She thought Tesman was beneath her, and after approximately six months of honeymooning, (where he gave her everything she wanted) she somehow still despised him. She was selfish, and cared only for herself, so having a baby, and the responsibility that comes with that would not be suitable for Hedda's personality at all. In addition to those things, we have to remember that she is a very proud woman. She believes she can "mould a mans destiny" and that she is a great and noble lady. That's where I think a lot of her "holier than thou" attitude stems from. She is not happy being confined by a boring husband, his boring lifestyle, and a baby.
DeleteBut what I think really tipped Hedda over was Judge Brack. He knew where Lovborg got the pistol from, and he knew that Hedda gave it to him intentionally. He threatened Hedda, telling her that he wouldn't tell the police where the gun came from so not to cause a scandal for her, so long as she do anything for him. Now Hedda is stuck between her image in the people's eyes and her fate as part of the crime, and being "subject to the will and demands of judge Brack." Hedda said so herself, "...A slave then! No, I cannot endure the thought of that! Never!" I believe her pride and unwillingness to belong to anyone other than herself when it comes to her actions, is what really made her kill herself. I believe she could've tolerated Tesman, could've pushed the responsibility of the baby off to someone else if she had to, but I believe Brack meddling was what made her kill herself in the end.
Now, the lesson of us having to come to terms with the life we've been given, I have to disagree. I believe we should make the best of every situation and have a positive attitude, but if we do not like the lives we are living, we have the power to change it. Perhaps in Hedda's time it was hard to get out of a lifestyle you didn't like, but nowadays we have so many opportunities and possibilities around us. If we don't like something, we have the right, and the ability to change it.
Act 1, check! After finishing the first quarter of this play, I have come to a few conclusions.
ReplyDelete-As Mr. MacArthur already predicted, I do not care for Hedda. We are not actually introduced to her at the beginning of the act. Instead, we listen to Miss Tesman, George Tesman, and Berta talking of her. First, Berta and Miss Tesman decide not to wake the newlyweds. Berta explains to Miss Tesman that she will miss staying with her and Rina, George Tesman's other aunt. She is afraid that Hedda's ways will be too "grand", and that she won't "be able to suit the young mistress". Berta is already nervous to make a good impression, and so is Miss Tesman. This becomes apparent when she tells George that she has purchased a bonnet that Hedda would not be ashamed of. Even George, her husband, feels the need to go to extreme means to enthuse her. He invests in a very extravagant house, and also spends money on a wonderful honeymoon. He realizes that she is high maintenance, and strives to meet her standards. Hedda does not seem at all impressed by anything as she enters the scene, says she slept "passably", demands that the doors left open by the maid be shut, tells Tesman that she doesn't care about his old slippers, complains of the "old bonnet". Her criticism goes on, pushing everyone to a level lower than her. She seems out of place in the middle class, and makes sure everyone around her knows it.
-During this act, I realized how well thought-out the play was. Main issues were introduced, developing as the scene went on. One conflict, of course, was the difference between Hedda and those around her. Her high class life did not match the bourgeois lifestyle of those around her. Another issue introduced in the first scene was Lovborg and Tesman-Eilert had moved back into town and threatened George's career.
Overall, the first act of this play was suspenseful, and makes me want to read more. Though Hedda is not my favorite character, I am excited to see how the plot unfolds.
I do agree with Devin about Hedda, although I am only finished with Act One, Hedda seems to be only about the money. She does not share the same loves as her husband does for her. She is more concerned about the house and buying things they cannot afford. Even if the hat was Berte's there was no reason to fuss over a situation like that. It goes to show how she views other people and small, harmless situations. Hedda, in addition, is a very nosy person. She would not let Mrs. Elvsted out of the house without an explanation to why she was there. Mrs. Elvsted talked about how mean Hedda was to her as a child and how afraid she was of her, and still was. Hedda seems to take more than she can give back, which is the main reason why I dislike her so far.
DeleteOverall, I did enjoy the first chapter and how the author of the play sets the scene. I am more drawn to the book and Hedda as a character, I want to see if there is a different side of Hedda as she develops throughout the book. I am a fan of Tesman, I do admire his patience and kindness towards Hedda. Although I do think it will backfire on him when the time comes. (just a prediction) Hedda did leave it with a cliff hanger when she told her husband she was going to the pistols. Does she have any relations to the mysterious women that Mrs. Elvsted was talking about? I'm very interested to read on. :)
Going off from what you ladies said regarding Hedda’s personality-An element to the play that I find interesting is how in Hedda and George’s marriage, there is almost a role reversal between the two spouses compared to the traditional husband and wife relationship of this setting. What I mean by this is that in this time period, typically the husband character would be considered the head of the household, portraying a strong and opinionated personality. In contrast, the wife is often depicted as the weaker character, concerned with romance, and fawning over her husband. However, in this couple’s marriage, Hedda is the bold, opinionated one, while George is preoccupied with wanting affection from his wife and catering to her every wish. Because Hedda had such a strong personality, she could not handle the societal constraints of playing the submissive housewife role. Even after only a few weeks of marriage, she could not bear the thought of living the rest of her life in these circumstances, which ultimately leads to her committing suicide.
DeleteI really like that you picked up on the role reversal there, Sammy. I never really paid much attention to their roles other than the fact that they seem like foils to one another in the sense that Hedda is very focused on material things, and herself and her image, while Tesman is selfless, and puts little glory in material belongings. It's quite interesting to see that the traditional husband and wife roles have been switched; I find it almost humorous, given that in the 1890s, it was definitely more of a mans world. You're quite right, Hedda would never be able to conform to her society's ideals and images of women.
DeleteI'm only a little part ways through Hedda Gabler, as I have only finished Act One and am part way into Act Two, but I have come to a few interesting opinions.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not find Hedda detestable, although she is quite a character and she has surprised me already. I actually enjoy her, and find her quite capable of going after what she wants, whether it's material things or information. Her habits go against the grain, but I find them quirky and entertaining rather than appalling. When she takes a shot at the Judge, honestly, I thought that was pretty funny. And her wry comment at the end of Act One (about only having her pistols to occupy her time) was genius in manipulating her husband.
So far, I'm enjoying this play, and while I can see how everyone hates her, personally, I can't wait to see what she does next.
I have similar feelings towards Hedda. I don't agree with all of her decisions, such as when Hedda insults Aunt Julia and pretends that the aunt's bonnet is the servant's. However, I can see that Hedda is just passively fighting society and the confining expectations that women should be proper and polite at all times, whether they're being honest or not.
DeleteIt's easy to blame her for causing her own unhappiness after marrying a man she doesn't love, but in that time there was a pressure to marry off young and settle down. I find that she is unsure of her next step in life and doesn't know how to free herself.
Allison S. says:
DeleteI thought of Hedda as amusing in the sense that most of what she did was so outwardly rude and offensive that it shocked me to read. One particular instance that I was surprised by was when Miss Tesman gave Tesman his old morning-shoes. Tesman was so excited and could not wait to share this token of the past with his wife and stated, “Yes, I missed them terribly. Now you shall see them, Hedda” (24)! Then Hedda simply replied with, “Thanks, I really don’t care about it” (24). I was astonished by how incredibly inconsiderate it was of her to bluntly reject and disregard something that was so obviously meaningful to the man whom she vowed to live with for the rest of her life. Throughout the play Hedda was consistently putting other characters down in such abrupt and condescending ways that I found myself excitedly reading to see what other preposterous things she would be capable of.
From the beginning of the play even before I moved past Act 1 I thought that she had a very crude sense of humor. She seemed very judgmental, but it seemed like a means to an end. She wanted to be seen as this high class women who was all but perfect in every way. But despite this it seemed like it was a hard-shell due to her insecurities as a women who felt she didn't have control over the world around her so she resorted unnatural means of entertainment such as firing a gun in the direction of another person.
DeleteI agree with Michaela that the pressures of society to marry were a huge problem for Hedda. Although, I didn't like her rude decisions, I think this was all she could think to do in the moment. She does seem to be fighting society in her own way. I saw this especially when she chose to not look at her husband when he tried to show her his slippers. "'Well, I missed them. (going to Hedda, smiling) These are the famous slippers. Look,'" (Ibsen 21). Next, Hedda moves to the stove and decides to not look. Even a simple action like this showed that Hedda was fighting her life situation in society.
DeleteI found that Hedda seems to have two very different sides to her that she switches between often. She has the meek, obedient side that wives are expected to have. When Tesman is present, she is often kind and puts on a disguise of a content wife. She can be this sweet, innocent woman when it benefits her also, such as when she got information out of Ms. Elversted after convincing her that they were friends and could share anything.
ReplyDeleteAt the same, Hedda has a rebellious side that reveals she longs for more in her life. This sometimes slips out without her realizing it, often confusing her husband and sounding improper. After Brack shared the news of Lovborg's death, her satisfaction slipped out in a few of her comments, despite her fake sorrow for the man. These two sides, one of conformity and one of rebellion, were probably common in women at the time, just not always as opposing and obvious perhaps as with Hedda.
I have similar thoughts about Hedda. I agree that she has two different sides, one more rebellious and the other sweet and appeasing. However, I think that Hedda’s rebellious side doesn’t always just slip out. Instead, her actions are deliberate. For example, after Aunt Julle left her hat on the chair Hedda pretends to think it’s Berte’s saying, “Look at that! She’s left her old hat lying on the chair there. Just think… somebody might come in and see it.” This was clearly purposeful. It was Hedda’s way of making Aunt Julle feel bad and bringing her down. This incident also reflects Hedda’s higher-class status. Another incident when Hedda is deliberately rude and rebellious is when she, Mrs. Elvsted, and Ejlert are talking. Hedda says, “Just look at him! There isn’t the slightest need for you to go about in mortal terror… There! Now we can all be lively!” Hedda purposefully says this to insult Ejlert and bring up his drinking problem. She also exposes Mrs. Elvsted for coming to town to spy on Ejlert.
DeleteWhile reading the part when Tesman picked up Lovborg's manuscript late one night and didn't return it to the drunk man, I wondered whether Tesman's initial intentions were pure or selfish. In that moment when he chose not to return it to Lovborg, it's hard to tell whether he planned to keep it, out of jealousy for the talented author or planned to return it to him, with the purest intentions. Of course, the next day he planned to bring the manuscript back to its rightful owner, but that was after he had time to think and decide the best course of action. Tesman seems like a kind, caring man, but his immediate thoughts about the manuscript and its fate are unclear.
ReplyDeleteI think Tesman wanted to return Eilert's manuscript, but was blinded by his jealousy. He knew that Eilert's manuscript would have "immortalised his name-" (66). Also, once Hedda told him her absurd reasoning as to why she burned his manuscript, Tesman was overjoyed; which in my opinion reveals his non pure intentions. However, once he finds out about Eilert's untimely death he is broken hearted and wants to fix the mess he believes he has created, thus revealing his pure intentions. So in short, I think Tesman wants to be the kind, and caring man that everyone believes his is but is often blinded by his emotions.
DeleteI think both of you may be right. A huge theme of this play is jealousy, and I think Ibsen may have wanted to show how it can appear subtly or shockingly. Hedda is clearly the much stronger jealous character, and her actions are more obvious, but Tesman is an example of subtler jealousy. He has every intention of being a noble man, but his subconscious knows that Lovborg is a stronger author than him, and he'll never measure up. I think this deep seated idea is what drives him to keep the manuscript. He knows that if he doesn't do something, he'll be outshined.
DeleteI agree with Amanda that Hedda is obviously the most stronger jealous character who almost always acts upon this jealousy. Tesman is definitely jealous but I feel that he is unlikely to act upon his feelings. Tesman seems to be a kind soul and wouldn't destroy someone's life's work over petty feelings like Hedda. I think he took the manuscript due to a subconscious motive, which he justified by bringing it home. But at the same time I feel he always had the intention of returning it to Lovborg.
DeleteAs I was reading this part of the story, my initial reaction was that Tesman took it out of jealousy. Earlier in the story, Tesman read Lovborg's other book and talked about how good it was. Maybe Tesman had a sudden urge of wanting to sabotage Lovborg, or maybe he merely wanted to read it over again and "be inspired" by Lovborg's ideas; but what is probable is that Tesman did not take the manuscript with 100% pure and good character. This can be reinforced by how Ibsen views life and human nature in this story. He views life negativity and sees humans as naturally being bad, as proved by the actions and feelings of his characters, like being motivated out of jealousy and not out of good faith.
DeleteSo I have this theory that I apply to life, however it was really applicable in this story. The theory is, if you understand where someone came from you can empathize and understand why they are who they are. I tried to do this through this entire story. I tried to understand and empathize with Hedda. To a degree, I can. She was raised by an Army General, that right there is her "catalyst". She was undoubtedly brought up in a strict house hold where she had to act the part of a Victorian Lady. Then as she grows older and her father is no longer in the picture, she has to marry a man she does not love. She marries for status, not passion. Now, none of this makes up for how awful of a person she is but it helped me wrap my head around why she is so godawful.
ReplyDeleteTo me, I always felt that her father had money because he was a General and spoiled her rotten, and that's why she was so nasty to others. I've never considered that perhaps she was repressed her whole life into being something that she's not. I would certainly be bitter if I couldn't be who I wanted to be! That makes a lot of sense to me, and while it doesn't give her an excuse, it does bring some insight to her and why she acts the way she does. It does also make me feel a little bad for her. Then I remember the way she treated other people and then the feeling passes.
DeleteI did not really think about this before but now that I do it helps me to understand her actions a little bit more. I do try to understand people and where they come from when I don't understand their actions, however I do believe that you can turn your life around. While Hedda may have tried to do this, I believe that she was not effective. She found a man that truly loved her and cared about her. All throughout the book he played the part of the adoring husband who would do anything for his wife. Hedda on the other hand did not love him in the same way that he loved her. She was entirely unhappy with her life and did not do much to make the best of. So I understand her actions however I cannot have too much sympathy for her because I feel she did not do much to improve her life after.
DeleteWhen I was just beginning to read the story and the conflict between Lovborg and Mrs. Elvsted emerged, my original understanding was they were having an affair and she was pregnant. However, upon further reading and going more in depth, she obviously is not. However, the way the author presents this conflict, its almost as if they do have a child. As the book continued we find out they do have a sort of offspring, the book. Its as if the creation of a book is even more intimate than having a physical child itself. Having a baby takes only one moment, one mistake, one night of recklessness. However, creating a masterpiece with someone is so much more intimate. They had to work together for MONTHS to create a book. It wasn't just an instant, it was a long period of time, understanding each other and working together. This concept really enchanted me.
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing Act II, I am beginning to spot more and more similarities between this book and The Awakening, a novel written by Kate Chopin that we read during AP English last year. I think the most obvious comparison is the main female characters, Hedda in the play and Edna Pontellier in the novel.
ReplyDeleteBoth these women seem unsatisfied in their marriage. In The Awakening, Edna is married to a man that loves her and shows her this by presenting her with gifts. She isn’t satisfied, though, and seems to hover close Robert Lebrun. As the novel goes on, we can see that she falls for his charm and distances herself from Léonce, her husband. She is different from the society around her-she doesn’t try to fit the mold of a Creole woman, but tries to be herself. The same goes for Hedda in this act. She is surrounded by the middle class and makes no effort to conform to them, believing that she is better for the higher class lifestyle. She also does not seem to love her husband as he loves her. Tesman knows that Hedda is a special woman and that he had to work to earn her. Hedda still seems to only want control over him, not to love him. As soon as she is alone with Judge Brack in this scene, she sits him down to speak with him. The two seem to be a bit flirtatious, and it becomes apparent that Hedda also wants control of her secret lover. The two women are similar because they don’t fit into their society or love their husbands.
I agree with you that Hedda Gabler and Edna Pontellier from The Awakening are very similar. Both women show a lack of love for their husbands. Another similarity between these two main characters is that they both kill themselves because they can't conform to the society they live in, and they refuse to live a life that they consider miserable. Edna isn’t able to conform to the "mother role", which is the expectation of the society she lives in. Hedda refuses to conform to the lower class status of her husband because she had grown up in a high-class environment. Hedda also doesn't marry Ejlert out of fear that there would be a scandal with his drinking problem. She then marries George instead because of societal pressures for women to be married. Edna kills herself because she refuses to live miserably as a mother and to be stuck in a relationship that lacks love. Edna desperately wants to be more independent and do things for herself and follow her dreams. She can't imagine life without pursuing what she wants and therefore kills herself. Similarly, Hedda despises her life. She tries to make her life somewhat enjoyable by "living through others" and messing with people. She is stuck in a loveless marriage and she is also pregnant. Hedda is extremely unhappy and bored with her life, which leads her to commit suicide. Both Hedda and Edna are women who refuse to conform and who are held back by societal expectations. Their conflicts, both internal and external, are also major reasons they both decide to take their lives.
DeleteSeeing similarities between Edna and Hedda seems very logical to me, as they both lived in similar time periods were women were seen as inferior to men and were not expected to become anything great. Women during this time period did what they were told and did not ask any questions. However, both Hedda and Edna are independent, opinionated women who, because of the characters, can't fit themselves into this role. If both women lived in more modern times, they probably would have had pretty normal lives, but since this was not the case, they both felt that death was the only way out of their misery.
DeleteHedda is not my favorite person after finishing the book, but I can sympathize with her.
ReplyDeleteShe was raised in a non-ideal manner where she lacked the love and affection that she desired. Her father was a strict Army General who was absent the vast majority of her life. Hedda was expected to live and act a certain way. Becasue of these standards she was in a way "compelled" to marry a man whom she did not love or even lust. She marries for status and nothing more. Throughout the whole book it is obvious that Hedda has no affection towards Tesman, she treats him like he is nothing and she is superior.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Hedda is a horrible person, but I have pushed aside my personal opinion in order to recognize the great literary element she is, and the beauty and mystery that she brings to the play.
Now that I have finished Henrik Ibsen's "Hedda Gabler", I have come to the predictable conclusion that Hedda is by no means a good person. Selfish seems to be the best way to describe her. Mrs. Tesman's negative qualities can be proven without even mentioning the fact that she is partially responsible for the death of Lovborg. For example, her means of "freeing" herself paid no mind to anyone but Hedda, leaving her husband to suffer especially. Although Mr. Tesman seems more concerned with work than his wife's well-being, he does not deserve a life plagued with death. It seems that Hedda is the source of most of the problems in the story, and that almost everything would be better off without her.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I feel that Hedda is the source of many problems. She seems to instigate issues without considering other people. She also complains a lot which shows just how selfish she really is. Tesman does buys a house for her that she had said she would love to have yet she is not happy with it even thought Tesman is struggling to pay for it. She also destroys Lovborg's manuscript even after he describes losing it like losing a child. Then when she knows he is at the most vulnerable point she gives him a gun instead of trying to help him. So although she may be a fascinating literary character, she is not a nice person and often looks for trouble.
DeleteAnother part of her that makes her selfish is her love for drama. She's makes situations more complicated than they need to be in order to keep herself occupied and interested. She doesn't give the manuscript to Lovborg because she knows it fix his problems and her friends and husbands lives with return to normal. Because of this Lovborg spirals into depress and this is what ultimately leads him to take his life.
DeleteAfter finishing "Hedda Gabler," I believe that Hedda is not as strong and powerful as she initially appears to be. Throughout much of the play, Hedda relishes in exerting complete control over Tesman and Mrs. Elvsted, manipulating them to the point where she can essentially do an say as she pleases. Furthermore, she has some amount of control over Lovborg, which is apparent when she manipulates him into drinking for the first time in years, an event that ultimately leads to his destruction. Hedda is extremely selfish and cruel, which allows her to have so much power over these characters. This power makes Hedda come across as a very strong-willed person. However, her demise exposes a side to her that we do not see throughout most of the play. When Judge Brack reveals that the police will trace the pistol back to her, she realizes that she is completely dependent on Brack to prevent this from happening. For the first time, Hedda is not in a position of power, and is in fact completely controlled by another person. The fact that she takes her own life demonstrates just how weak she is. She cannot handle the idea of having no power over someone and having to cater to their needs.
ReplyDeletePepijn says"
ReplyDelete"Just finished reading the play "Hedda Gabler" I agree with just about everyone that Hedda Tesman is a pretty terrible person. She doesn't seem to have much sympathy for anyone or anything. Since it is a play it is difficult to see how the characters feel but it is quite clear that Hedda is very selfish, manipulative, apathetic, and feels like she is above everyone else. A great example of all this is her treatment of Ejlert. She kind of manipulates him into drinking, which he hasn't done in a long because it caused many problems for him. Others are more supportive of his abstinence from alcohol, but she doesn't seem to care about him and his goals in the slightest. Later in the play when Ejlert tells her he can't go on anymore and wants to end his life, she doesn't support him in a positive way, but instead she gives him one of her pistols and says she hopes he has a beautiful death. This goes to show how messed up Hedda is and how she doesn't care for anyone. She likes to have control over people, and right when Brack tells her about the pistol being traced back to her, and how only Brack can stop her from getting in trouble she ends her life. This shows how she needs to feel above everyone else in order to live."
I can completely agree with what Pepijin said about Hedda. She feels no remorse for her actions, especially to Lovborg and she continues to manipulate all of the people around her. She tricked Lovborg into drinking again and most of all handed him a pistol basically telling him to just go on and to kill himself instead of trying to talk him out of it which is what any normal person would do when faced with this situation. This shows how she feels nothing toward any of the characters and her main purpose is to have the feeling of control over the actions that everyone does throughout the play. Hedda overall is a terrible person and in my opinion deserved the ending she got because as Pepijin also said she needs to feel above everyone else in order to live and the moment she started feeling as if she didn't have the control she wanted anymore, she took her own life without even thinking about the impact this would have on the others around her.
DeleteThis play seems to take an odd approach to the way it portrays its characters. Ibsen forces negative characteristics onto the few mildly like able characters in the play. It seems like he's desperately trying to say nobody is perfect. Tesman is a good man, but Ibsen forces him to be boring and oblivious. Mrs. Elvsted has to be "stupid" so she isn't perfect. The Judge has to be manipulative to put a flaw in his character. Eilert needs to be volatile to make him imperfect. It really takes a negative approach to how it views it's characters because Ibsen seems to have created two tiers of people: the intelligent and the oblivious. The intelligent are always horribly flawed and manipulative, and the oblivious are irritating because they are intelligent enough to understand what's going on around them. Because of this, nearly every character is frustrating. It's a very interesting approach because it just leaves the audience unhappy throughout especially since it's centered around a character who is essentially a monster and with a supporting cast of idiots and sociopaths.
ReplyDeleteThat's a bit of a harsh assessment, but I definitely see where you're coming from.
Delete1) "This play seems to take an odd approach to the way it portrays its characters."
For sure. My take? In developing the characters, Ibsen seems to have focused almost entirely on Hedda, thus largely ignoring the others' characterization. The effect somewhat resembles a fable, which gives the play a medicinal edge: appealingly remedial, but rather unpalatable. (Like Amanda said, Hedda overshadows everyone else--really, this play's cast consists of an exceedingly complex enigma of a protagonist, offset by a backdrop of stereotypical caricatures. Yikes.)
2) "It seems like he's desperately trying to say nobody is perfect."
I think he's desperately trying to say /something/, but
- aren't we all?
- I don't think it's that nobody is perfect
- but I'm not sure what else it could be
There's the social commentary aspect (gender oppression, social caste system, doomed marriage), so maybe it's a dig at society, like a very civil form of satire. But it's really not that clear-cut, because while Hedda is a product of aforementioned societal problems, under Hedda-the-victim is Hedda-the-villian and under that is more Hedda-the-victim, and so on. Maybe Ibsen is trying to show that control is a vice? Either way, I think he left it open to interpretation on purpose. Universal and timeless themes and all that--this is a classic, after all.
3) "...Ibsen seems to have created two tiers of people: the intelligent and the oblivious."
I like this two-tier thing. Of course, the intelligent are actually quite oblivious in their own way, but that's not the point. (Also--I wouldn't go so far as to say that ignorance is bliss, but the more intelligent characters seemed to have a knack for ending up dead, so.)
4) "...a character who is essentially a monster..."
The thing is, Hedda isn't a monster. She's very human, actually, which, yeah--way, way worse.
After reading half of this play, I'm both intrigued and horrified by Hedda's character. As expected, I don't like her at all. She seems incredibly manipulative, and unsatified with her life. These two things combined create someone incredibly dangerous. I wonder why she has taken such an interest in the relationship of Mr. Lovborg and Mrs. Elvsted, especially when it seems that Hedda had a past relationship with Mr. Lovborg. She may try to manipulate or harm that relationship to her advantage, which could be foreshadowed by her brash love of pistols. I'm interested to see how the plot continues and unfolds.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how you said she's satisfied with her life. Her current situation is very boring to her and she is harsh and sarcastic to those around her. At one point when Tesman is very excited about his aunt returned. He wants to show Hedda so she can share his excitement but she replies, "No, thanks. I really don't care about doing that,". This shows how she cannot have happiness for anyone else.
DeleteI just finished the play, and I have to say I'm surprised by the ending. Hedda's suicide seems random and not at all like her. I think her only motive could've been jealousy. She was jealous of Mrs. Elvsted because she seemed to attract the attention of all the men in her life. First Mr. Lovborg during the writing of his book, which Mrs. Elvsted likened to "their child", and then again with Mr. Tesman, while trying to put the book back together. Maybe Hedda could see the "inspiration" and attraction the two would inevitably share, and she decided to take herself out of the equation early. I think her jealousy is definitely evidenced by the burning of the maunscript. Even when alone, she has to prove she's superior to everyone, talking to herself about "burning Thea's child." I think Hedda is definitely mentally disturbed, although to what extent I'm not sure. She completely overshadowed everyone else in the play, which I'm assuming is purposeful. Hedda is like a powerful storm, and all the other characters are helpless against her impact.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Amanda is saying. I too was surprised when Hedda committed suicide so suddenly; I thought it was out of character for her to go down without a fight. Her manipulative behavior could have easily maneuvered a way for her to be in control of her life again, so her killing herself so quickly was shocking. I also agree with the idea that Hedda may have done it out of jealousy. Lovborg is not a character who is easily tied down to one person, and has a romantic history with many characters, and that really sparked jealousy in Hedda, almost controlling what her next move would be. She is almost like a game of chess, constantly thinking two steps ahead of everyone else. This mindset has led her to manipulate her way in or out a situation multiple times throughout the play. A good example of this is when she gains Thea’s trust when she is expressing her concern over Lovborg. They are discussing how Thea knows there was a crazy woman in his past who threatened to shoot him with a pistol, little does Thea know that that person is Hedda.
Delete- Why does Hedda shoot herself in the temple? What about the poetry of a bullet to the heart? For someone who got way too excited about sponsoring someone else's "beautiful death", Hedda's suicide had an almost anticlimactic lack of savage pomp.
ReplyDelete- Is Hedda deserving of sympathy? How about empathy?
Jacob W. says:
Delete"- From a purely practical standpoint, a bullet to the head makes much more sense than a bullet to the heart. Death is instantaneous, so no pain is experienced. Also, a bullet to the brain is a much easier target than a bullet to the heart; it's actually not uncommon for gunshot suicides to go wrong through a simple case of a bullet missing its target. You seem to be more interested in the emotional significance, however. For that question of emotion, one should wonder, why is the heart more "poetic" than the brain? The heart is commonly alluded to in popular culture as the source of all our basic emotions, true, but where are our thoughts? Our dreams? These are surely located in our brains, and Hedda may simply have wanted to destroy her thoughts and dreams in the most direct way possible.
- I, personally, find it extremely difficult to sympathize with Hedda. I understand that she had a boring and uninteresting time as a young woman. I also understand that she hoped for something more in her life; something more grand, more interesting, more... something. Of course, she never reached that "something", and this is what drove her to commit suicide. However, much of this is her fault. She married a man she quickly lost interest in (which raises the question: how confident in their love could she have been that she lost interest in him so soon?) and then continues to carelessly toy with the fates of others (see: Lovborg). It's even harder to empathize with her, as nobody on this blog has been in her situation or has any experiences similar to hers."
- Well put!
Delete- Okay, but I think there was more behind her suicide than simply a lack of excitement.
I think she had it coming, but it isn't necessarily all her fault--kind of like Edna from /The Awakening/.
The thing is, I don't think Hedda was ever really interested in Lovborg. She sees him as a means of fulfilling the societal requiem of marriage. Better yet, he's of a lower social class, so she's automatically above him.
I feel like Hedda's manipulation is a coping mechanism. She has no power, so she grants herself the next best thing: control. If you think about it, Hedda has virtually no potential in life. I don't imagine that feels too great.
Empathy isn't everything, of course, but I believe that there's a certain value in being able to play Humanize the Antagonist, so to speak. Sure, none of us live in 1890 Norway, but there must be some aspects of Hedda's life that are applicable to modern day. She's repulsed by scandals, isn't sure why she does what she does, terribly bored and tired--nothing too foreign, right? In a way, her marriage could be seen as similar to choosing to go to a college you don't like but can get into easily just because a) everybody else was going and b) everyone expected you to and thought you should.
After finishing the play, I personally saw Hedda's suicide as being expected. Throughout the play all she wanted to do was manipulate and control the people around her so that things will always go the way she wanted them to. For example, she gave Lovborg the pistol and nearly told him to commit suicide so she could have control over his life. She also pretended to not know about the manuscript that her husband was going to later give back to Lovborg and instead destroyed it completely out of jealously for the relationship that was described in the manuscript. Once she discovered that Lovborg was actually shot and things had not gone the way she had planned, she became flustered almost and was confused on how things didn't go the way she had expected them to. Brack then told her that he knew the pistol was hers and told her the news that she might have to appear in court, she no longer felt the control that she wanted to have. Therefore, she decided to take "the easy way out" in this situation and avoid the possible scandal completely by killing herself. Hedda was a violent character and as Amanda said previously she is like a powerful storm and the other characters cant do anything about her actions.
ReplyDeleteI truly agree with both accounts of the above comments on Hedda's personality and character. Contrary to that,in my perspective I would LOVE to have known Hedda on a personal level. What made her feel the uncanny need for control? Was it her regretting her past? Perhaps it was not having much dominance growing up in a society opposed to gender equality? I believe that Hayley's point of Hedda not Discovering who she was as an individual, similarly that Hedda being generally hostile was a defense mechanism against those wishing to get to know her; seeing as she didn't even know herself. I most Definitely agree with Alli's statement above of Hedda Craving the control in the lives of those around her. This is a very insightful and valid point. Maybe she committed suicide due to this incident of her being "caught in a lie", because for one of the first times she felt unbearably out of control within her own life...
DeleteI also saw her suicide as expected, and I completely agree with what Alli said about her wanting to manipulate and control the people around her so that things would always go the way she wanted them to. But like Ashlyn, I would also like to personally know Hedda so that I could better understand why she felt the need to manipulate and control the people around her.
DeleteJacob W. says:
ReplyDelete"I agree with many of the other analyses of Hedda posted here. When reading the play, it was hard for me to not instinctively dislike her. She is self-absorbed, mean, and manipulative throughout the story. I could understand self-absorption, I suppose, as she was led to believe her entire life that she was a higher-class individual, deserving of more than the common person. However, her plainly mean and manipulative tendencies can't be so easily ignored. For example, she intentionally led Lovborg down a devastating path when she decided to interfere with his recovered state and suggest suicide. Hedda projects her emotional disturbances onto others and puts her effort into making them do what she wants them to do, rather than encouraging them to act in their best interests (as a good friend and a good person would do). I can see how some would sympathize with her, but personally, I strongly dislike her and cannot sympathize with her at all."
- Jacob W.
I have to agree almost entirely with Jacob here as its easy to see why people would sympathize with her due to her inherent insecurities and her lack of control over the world around her. I personally can't bring myself to be sorry for her. As Jake said above she was lead to believe she was a higher class individual that deserved more then everyone else. She could have chosen almost anyone and she chose someone who she thought would become rich some day and quickly lost interest when she realized he had morals, and wouldn't walk over others to get higher. What makes it the hardest to feel bad for her is the complete lack of remorse for all the horrific things she did to people. She blatantly toyed with other peoples lives and in all reality is a murderer. For all intensive purposes she killed Lovborg, she gave him the gun and practically convinced him suicide was his best option. All this was out of selfishness, she wanted to control someone's fate. Anyone who can kill someone just to feel in control is someone I can't feel bad for, especially after celebrating her "victory" instead of mourning the death of a guy that frankly did nothing to her.
DeleteWhile reading Hedda Gabler, I felt intrigued and confused by many of Hedda’s actions throughout the play. One of these surprising actions that lasted in my mind was Hedda’s behavior regarding guns. I was confused not only because she used her father’s guns when she was feeling bored, but also because Hedda did not seem to appreciate the sentimental value of the guns. She should have respected those guns as a treasure, considering they belonged to her father, an honorable general. Not to mention they are some of only a few items that allow her to be Hedda Gabler instead of Hedda Tesman. I thought that since the guns seemed to be so important the least she could do was store them in a safe proper location, and to me the writing desk wasn’t the expected location I had in mind. Writing desks are typically used to create something positive through one’s writing. Hedda does the opposite with her desk. Instead of constructing (writing) she stores something that is used for destructing, her guns.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think another aspect of Hedda's behavior towards guns is that their deadliness doesn't threaten her in any way. She fired the gun Lovborg before when she wanted their relationship to end with full knowledge that the bullet could have killed him. This represents her carelessness for the sanctity of life. To her, life has been one constant hum of boredom in which she struggles to entertain herself. Her carelessness foreshadowed how she would end up taking her life in the end.
DeleteI think there are several reasons why Hedda eventually decides to commit suicide. One of these reasons is that she is blackmailed and can't deal with yet another confining situation in her life. All Hedda wants throughout the play is independence. Hedda's dream of freedom comes to an end because of Judge Brack. Hedda soon realizes that in order for Brack not to expose her as the owner of the pistol, she must be subject to his will and commands. Hedda is faced with the decision of forever being controlled or to face a public scandal. One of Hedda's greatest fears is a public scandal because it threatens her social status. Being constrained by Brack is also not an option for Hedda because she so desperately craves freedom and independence. Hedda is, in her mind, left with only one option: to kill herself.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what Sydney has to say about Hedda. I feel Hedda, for example, not only took charge of her relationship with Mr.Tesman, but she doesn’t want to handle another situation in her life unless she is in complete control of it. She thrives on the idea of freedom to be her own person but is torn between what she wants and the standard she wants for herself in the eyes of society. Since Hedda was raised by a military father, it only seems fit that she was used to strict discipline and having to act a certain way. Under these conditions, it seems fair to want to break away from rules and attain freedom from what others want from her. This was very different than what was expected from women during this time period. As it being the nineteenth century, women were expected to be/become housekeepers or respectable wives. This could not be more opposite as to what Hedda aspires to be. She seeks independence and freedom to do what she pleases, while trying to keep a positive image in society. When she realized this would not be attainable with Brack controlling her actions, like Sidney said, she thought she had no other option than to kill herself in order to have complete freedom.
DeleteI agree with what both Sidney and Taylor have said about Hedda. Hedda thrives on the idea of independence, yet wants to keep a positive image in society. In this time period wives weren't supposed to be "independent" they were supposed to be loyal, loving, and respectable housekeepers and wives. Hedda was willing to become the wife to a man whom she doesn’t love, or lust. She does this in spite of her image in society, but Hedda is in complete control of this relationship so she can also be the independent woman that she wanted to be. Once Hedda realized that the only way to keep Brack from exposing her as the pistol owner, would be to become his "slave” she knew that the only way to free herself from the situation would be to take her own life.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis play has really made me think about one of the most prominent themes in our world today: jealousy and fear lead to corruption. Hedda is a prime example of this, for her jealousy and anger allow her to be corrupted into such an awful woman. She envies the success and happiness of others, such as that of Lovborg and his wife. She fears that Lovborg will take away her husband's chance of success and thus, her happiness and prime social status as well. Therefore, her jealousy and fear corrupted her into a manipulative and deceitful woman who did all in her power to destroy Lovborg and his chances of success. In addition, this theme is extremely prominent across the world. One of the strongest examples of the idea that fear leads to corruption is from the World War II/Hitler era. Hitler took a society that was seeking blame for their hardship and gave them a scapegoat, someone to blame and take out their anger on. In a similar manner, Hedda, in her search for happiness, took Lovborg as a threat to her social status with his potential to take her husband's position at the university and his upcoming manuscript. As a result, she did all in her power to destroy him, thus amplifying the theme that jealousy and fear caused her corruption and her downfall, just like the world around us.
ReplyDeleteWhoaaa I think comparing Hedda to Hitler is a little bit intense. Maybe I'm just an entertained reader, but Hedda is awesome! Where you seem to see jealousy and hate, I see intelligence and pride. Hedda may have been a woman, but she knew she was worth something, she knew she was just as smart as the men around her. She knew if Eilert went to the party and got drunk, it would be his downfall, and she used it to her own advantage. Some may call that selfish, but she was looking out for herself. She may not have had the best character, but Hedda had a greater understanding of what living is worth than anyone I know. She was living for herself, and the minute Judge Brack took that away from her, she ended it - herself. Headstrong? Maybe. But Hitler? Definitely not.
DeleteMoving on to Act 3, we gain more knowledge on the topics of Hedda's sanity and her relationship with Brack. Conflicts in this act also seem to evolve, many at once, too.
ReplyDeleteOne conflict was between Lovborg and Mrs. Elvsted. At the start of this act, Mrs. Elvsted waits anxiously for the arrival of the man she loves, Lovborg. It is the morning after Judge Brack's party, and he still has not returned. When he does, bursting through the Gablers' door much later in the day, he tells Mrs. Elvsted that they cannot see each other anymore. She leaves after he tells her of their "child"-the manuscript to his book is gone. Little does he know, Hedda has it in her possession. This is the end of a relationship in the story, and possibly of a life, once Hedda gives Lovborg her pistol, and basically tells him to kill himself.
We also see a growing relationship between Hedda and Judge Brack. Though they do not speak outright of an affair, they speak of a "triangle"-this is assumed to be the relationship between Hedda, Judge, and Tesman. We know that Hedda loves being in control-and this is one of the only situations that she can do that.
Lastly, I have come to the conclusion that Hedda is starting to lose her mind. As Lovborg and Mrs. Elvsted speak about the "death of their child", she mutters random things and random points. She is beginning to think that she cannot keep control of those around her, and that breaks her. She also decides to give a weapon to Lovborg, happily, and thinks this is okay.
The play developed quite a bit through the scene. Ibsen does a great job creating suspenseful dialogue. For example, in the conversation between Judge and Hedda, he informs us of their affair without telling us outright. His style is still easy to read, though this play is rather old.
Devin's description of the Act Three is very insightful. I think she hit the main points of the chapter. Hedda has gone mad, from burning the manuscript to handing over a gun to Ejlert. She seems to have a mental disorder that we don't know about, probably because psychological disorders at the time were seen as something that wasn't real. Hedda sat by the fire and burned the manuscript; something to important to Ejlert that he was comparing it to his child. Before this, Hedda proceeded to give Ejlert a pistol and she knew that he was desperate, and sad. More importantly she knew that if she handed over the pistol he was going to kill himself, she just made it easier for him to do. Hedda is clearly mentally unstable at this point in the play, and it doesn't seem like she will be able to recover from it anytime soon. To Hedda, death seems like a happy thing for her; she feeds of the negativity and hatred. She easily could have given back the manuscript but didn't do it, she wanted to watch him suffer. I question whether she did this out of hatird, due to their past relationship or because of her mental insinity.
DeleteDevin brought up a valid point about the realtionship between Brack and Hedda. It was interesting how defensive he got over Hedda and essentially demanding that she cuts Ejlert out of her life permintally. Brack seems to be jealous and protective and brings up some sort of a relationship that was more than just a friendship. I wonder if this realtionship will be brought up again or even continued.
I have just finished Act 4, and I've come to a few conclusions.
ReplyDelete-Hedda is obviously insane. Before killing herself at the end of the act, she decides that Lovborg killing himself is a beautiful thing. He went with a tragic ending, and has freedom. She had given him the pistol used in his murder, but is horrified to find out that she may be in trouble for doing so, with the court. She is dressed perfectly for the occasion of her own death-in black, because her husband's Aunt Rina just passed away. Before "doing the deed", she plays a dance song on the piano after excusing herself from the presence of others. Also before doing so, she says to Judge Brack, "Yes, don't you flatter yourself we will, Judge Brack? Now that you are the one cock in the basket-". This line reflects her thoughts on the affair with him. Her insanity is definitely present in this scene.
-I think the reason for her madness is her inability to control those around her. At the start of the story, all of the male characters seemed to adore Hedda-obviously George, her own husband, Brack, who seems willing to risk everything to be the "cock of the walk", and even Lovborg, who wants to share in her "passion for life". Berte, Aunt Julia, and Mrs. Elvsted also seem to bow down to Hedda-they know she is of high class, and are willing to do much to impress her. In the last 2 acts, she sees this slipping out of her hands-people are not paying as much attention to her as they were. She doesn't think there is anything she can do anymore to control people, and this drives her over the edge.
-One small thing that I thought may have been possible was Hedda being pregnant. When she and George came home from their honeymoon, George seemed happy that Hedda was "filling out". Hedda was embarrassed of her weight gain, probably because of her looks but also because she was hiding something. At the end of the story, Aunt Julia ushers Hedda to "talk to George about something"-I believe she knew of her pregnancy, but Hedda was unable to bring herself to tell anyone, or even to believe in this fact herself.
Overall, I enjoyed this play. It was short, but very well written and developed. Henrik Ibsen is a great writer, and knows just how to pull readers (or watchers!) into his play.
About the pregnancy, I found it almost comical how clueless Jorgen was when Aunt Juliane kept hinting at "hopes" and "what to do with the spare room". It makes me wonder, if Hedda actually was pregnant, did her husband's oblivious and unprepared attitude affect her?
DeleteAfter reading this play, I feel that the choice of the setting fits perfectly the message from the author. By setting the play in a wealthy household yet including members of many different socioeconomic classes, the author's message about humanity can be seen. The play touches on the many imperfections of humans like greed and envy.
ReplyDeleteIn certain parts of the play, both Hedda, Tesman and Brack display envy. Hedda displays this envy when she burns the manuscript in a fit of insanity. She is envious of his success and does this act to stop him. Because Hedda is the highest social class in the play, it shows how even the rich and powerful can be envious. Although Tesman is still wealthy, he doesn't have the air of superiority that his wife has. However, he still shows envy when he learns about Lövborg's success as a writer and how it threatens his own career. He is worried throughout the whole play that Lövborg will snatch his professorship away from him. It isn't until Lövborg announces he will not compete with him that Tesman starts to be less envious and worried about his success. Even Brack, who is part of a much lower social class, is susceptible to greed and envy. Throughout the play, he is constantly getting involved in other people's business and shows his greed at the end of the play. Because he has the power to report Hedda to the police about the gun, he toys with Hedda and the idea of using the position against her. It is only when she starts to understand what has happened that he realizes it would be unkind for him to abuse his power.
By showing the reader the impurities of humans in all walks of life, Henrik Ibsen teaches us that these characteristics are human nature.
I do agree that envy plays a part in the motivation for Hedda burning the papers but I think the main reason she did so was to demonstrate control. Throughout the novel Hedda trys to be in control of her and other's destiny. She wants to have an impact on what happens in the lives of all who surround her whether it be good or bad. Hedda feels trapped by being a woman in this time period. Although she is of wealth and a high social class, Hedda is strictly confined to the activities she can and cannot do. She describes this as feeling "bored" but what I think she really means is she feels like she has no control. This can be seen when she pressures Lovborg into drinking again or when she complains about things just so she can make Tesman do things for her. When Tesman gave Hedda Lovborg's papers she was again in control of someone's destiny. That combined with envy as well as curiosity to what might happened was the reason for her burning of the papers.
DeleteThat was me by the way. I don't know why it says unknown.
DeleteAfter finishing Act Two everything makes sense now. Hedda admits to her unhappiness that seemed to be a feeling that was pushed aside in Act One. Hedda however surpirsed me, when she admited she only married Tesman because she was bored and unhappy with the "single life". I expected Hedda to be more about a single lifestyle because she is always talking about her freedom. In addition Hedda seems more of the type of lady that is wild and dose not like to be settled down.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading through Act Two, we become aware that Hedda and Ejert were in a relationship before Tesman. I know she expalined why she left him but I still dont really understand why she left Ejert. She talked about how she did like the secret intamacy but when things got too serious she cut it off. So why did she go off and marry a man she didnt love? I feel as if she is contradicting herslf and does not know what she really wants. I am aware that Ejert had a drinking problem, but was that the real reason? Or was there more? I have a feeling Hedda will be clearer and explain her reasoning more about why she cut of Ejert.
Charlotte Potter says:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Act 1, I feel the author successfully showed the reader the important characteristics of all the main characters. Tesman and Aunt Julia have similar values in that they both want to impress and please Hedda. They both have taken measures to prove to Hedda that they are worthy of being in her life. Although Miss Tesman’s gesture was much smaller than George’s, it was still significant. The bonnet she bought was her way of expressing to Hedda that she wanted to go out in public with her and to not make Hedda ashamed. Hedda was not impressed and knew exactly what she was doing when she asked if it was Berta’s bonnet. George clearly wants to do everything to make her happy and shows this by taking a financial risk in buying such an extravagant house. He is receiving help from Aunt Julia and Judge Brack just to please Hedda. This gives Brack insight on the personal aspect of their marriage. Hedda does not respect George, but she takes advantage of what she has provided her. This is proven when it is insinuated that Hedda is pregnant and she denies it. She does not want it to be known that she has developed that intimate of a relationship with George. The final major character shown is Mrs. Elvsted. To me, she appeared to be a pushover. With little persuasion from Hedda, Thea reveals that she was not treated well in her last marriage where she started off as a governess, not even someone who was pursued as a first choice. The only reason she left him was she had the support of another man to help her leave. Throughout the first act, Hedda is portrayed as a mean, privileged girl, but at least she has independent thoughts and is aware of her unhappiness without someone directing her. She has her pistols as her private source of entertainment, separate from her life with her husband. Hedda wants to be free to do whatever she wants, but she also knows what society expects her to be and that is why she complies with the life George provides her.
Jacob Wasserstein says:
ReplyDelete"To my fellow commenters: I'm genuinely curious. How many of you actually liked Hedda Gabler as a person and a character? Would you be friends with her? Do you think she was desperate, despicable, or both? There seems to be some variation in the reaction to her character. Some, like myself, find her unforgivably mean and horribly self-centered. I (and others) almost laughed at the ridiculousness of her character, such as when she insults Aunt Julia and her hat straight to her face, then shows no regret immediately after. However, others seem to see Hedda in a more positive light. They see her as a victim of her circumstances and the world in which she grew up in, a captive of society and its problems. What are your most direct opinions of Hedda?"
Hi Jake, good question. I can see both sides to this argument but I would have to say I agree with you. I don't feel sympathy for Hedda's action because she is the root of all her problems. It was her decision to marry Tesman, a man she did not love. She made no effort to better her relationship with him, which is shown by her disrespectful behavior towards Aunt Julia, who Tesman held dear. Of course your point of being captive of society could be true, but I feel that Hedda can't use an excuse of her upbringing or society problems as justification for her actions. It doesn't matter what she was going through or went through, it doesn't give her an excuse to live the way she does. Good question Jake, I'm also curious to see what others have to say.
DeleteI agree with Andrew that this is a good question, and I also can see all of the sides to the argument, however I have a totally new opinion on Hedda that goes against all of that. I believe that Hedda was a sociopath, who truly could not feel remorse for her actions and had trouble feeling true emotions at all. The only time she ever shows emotion is when people talk about death or describe a death, in which case she almost becomes aroused by it. She shows many signs of sociopathic behavior, and what I mean by this is that she doesn't feel emotions, but she can show them, and has a tendency to manipulate because it comes almost naturally to her. She also cannot understand some of the feelings of others, almost seeming disinterested in them. She never loved anyone because she could not feel that emotion, and this is evident in her relationship with Lovborg, who loved her so much but she didn't feel the same, and her current husband, who I believe she married due to societies pressures of being married. She has no desire to have her own children and only truly cares about herself. It is not society nor her upbringing that causes her behavior, rather the way her brain is.
DeleteJacob Wasserstein says:
ReplyDelete"To my fellow commenters: I'm genuinely curious. How many of you actually liked Hedda Gabler as a person and a character? Would you be friends with her? Do you think she was desperate, despicable, or both? There seems to be some variation in the reaction to her character. Some, like myself, find her unforgivably mean and horribly self-centered. I (and others) almost laughed at the ridiculousness of her character, such as when she insults Aunt Julia and her hat straight to her face, then shows no regret immediately after. However, others seem to see Hedda in a more positive light. They see her as a victim of her circumstances and the world in which she grew up in, a captive of society and its problems. What are your most direct opinions of Hedda?"
After finishing the story, I tried to figure out if I liked Hedda by taking a deeper look into her character. Though I tried this, it did not work. I find it hard to like her power-based compulsions and her manipulative tendencies towards everyone around her. In a way you can appreciate her intelligence because she can juggle manipulating and lying to so many people, but that doesn’t make me like her. You can tell right away that Hedda is not a kind, genuine person like you would wish a main character to be. This became evident to be in the first act when she was speaking with Miss Tesman. Miss Tesman bought a new hat specifically because Hedda would not be seen in public with her wearing something that she didn’t see fit. Hedda was well aware of the fact that Miss Tesman bought a new hat, but still said “look at that! She’s left her old hat lying on the chair there…Just think, somebody might come in and see it”. It becomes clear that this was on purpose when Hedda shows no sign of remorse and does not even muster up an apology to Miss Tesman. This was just the tip of the iceberg into Hedda’s shallow hobby of causing unnecessary problems and lying to everyone around her. One thing I did find after finishing the play is the fact that Hedda does not have any true friends. Her relationship with Thea is built off of fake trust so that does not count. Initially I thought her relationship with Brack could count as a friendship, but that too is corrupted by him finding out about her lying about Ejlert’s manuscript. I came to the conclusion that Hedda is very lonely, and her inability to maintain a stable friendship may lead her to take the actions that she does.
DeleteI went into this play hoping that I could try to feel some sympathy towards Hedda, but after finishing the whole play I came to the conclusion that I dislike Hedda because of how selfish she is. This is evident when Tesman was discussing how ill his Aunt Rina was and how she is really suffering. Hedda responds by saying, "So she always is" (300). She didn't care to ask Tesman how he was dealing with the loss of his Aunt or even care to offer up some sympathy. Instead she decided to change the topic and make the situation about her. Her true colors are evident all over the book and the audience gets to see how selfish she really is. But another instance that really stood out to me was when Mrs. Elvsted slept over Hedda's house because she was up all night worrying about where her husband was and when he would come home. But Hedda slept through the night perfectly and did not even care to worry about her husband at all. I could not find myself to like Hedda because I could not get past how self absorbed she was.
DeleteHedda Gabler is far more complex than people give her credit for. Yes, she is obviously a mean, manipulative and cold woman, but her character cannot be simply described as such. As we read the play, we see all of the things she does, and we initially take them at face value. Because our first impression of Hedda is bad, we don’t sympathize with her. It’s easy to forget that her snootiness was caused by her lavish upbringing. Raised by the famous and wealthy General Gabler, Hedda was automatically accustomed to the finer things in life- it’s just what she expects because it’s the norm for her. That is not necessarily her fault. Tesman is a class below Hedda, and it shows. His lifestyle is not what she is used to and it is a displeasing adjustment for her. Hedda also seems uncaring toward her husband, but in the play she confesses the marriage nearly happened out of her own thoughtlessness. She alludes to the marriage spiraling into something much greater than it should have. Hedda is also bored to no end- she is a woman in the late 1800’s… there was nothing she was allowed to do. Seriously…nothing. So, this resorted to her entertaining herself through the manipulation of others. It seemed as if she manipulated men to live through them, in a way. She’s jealous of their limitless freedoms and detests her oppression as a female in society at this time. Not only does she manipulate the men in her life because she’s bored and jealous, but she also may feel that as a woman, she doesn’t measure up. The only feminine thing about Hedda is her beauty. She isn’t maternal, sweet, kind, etc., all the things a typical woman should be, so she tries to live through and manipulate the opposite sex. I don’t disagree that Hedda possesses bad character traits, but these traits are justified in their own ways. If you look deeper into Hedda’s situation, you find ways to sympathize with her.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Finnegan says:
ReplyDeleteWell I just finished Hedda Gabler, and from the get go I already found it much more engaging, easy to follow, and enjoyable. I found myself liking the way that Ibsen characterizes the characters without even explaining who they are. I think that I should definitely start choosing plays to read in my free time. I loved A Streetcar Named Desire tremendously last year. The way that characters are developed through a play rather than a novel I think is more interesting because the author really doesn't have the ability to SAY how a character is as much as demonstrate it with body language and facial expressions. Hedda is an amazing character, and the ending of the story left me wondering a lot more than in The Return of the Native. I find it funny how George Tesman is really portrayed as an oblivious character. When Aunt Julia tells Tesman how they will find use for empty rooms in time (suggesting babies will be born). George only thinks "oh for when my studies expand and i need more space for books." I can vividly picture interactions between these characters more so than in the novel for sure.
I agree with Olivia, I felt more drawn to this book and wanted to keep reading. I also would like to take up reading more plays because I like how formal it is. Like when the author writes that a certain character has a different facial expression etc. In a way the book was comforting to me, I liked the characters and how they react with each other, and how you can see the whole scene in your head.
DeleteOlivia Finnegan says:
ReplyDeleteI feel like Hedda is so extremely vain and self conscious, that she just was so horrified about the idea of being seen as an old spinster type woman who is single and passed her prime, that she felt desperate to marry someone that she thought would give her the high status she demanded. This person was Tesman, and even though she could've married She obviously chose money over love, but at the time status was even more woven into society than it is today, so it is hard for us to truly get this.
Hedda’s obsession with her pistol collection, which she had inherited from her father, began early in the play when Tesman said they would not be able to have horses or a butler, but she was happy to be amused by her pistols. There were various times in the book where she had pointed a gun at someone (Judge Black) or brought up a memory of pointing a gun at someone (Lovborg). Hedda was extremely selfish, especially towards the end of the play. Every manipulative decision she made was purposefully to benefit herself only and not anyone else. As my other classmates said, she handed Lovborg one of her prized pistols, that she had pointed at him prior to this event, and enabled him to commit suicide. After Judge Black brought it to her attention that the pistol would be traced back to her, she froze and decided to commit suicide as well. This is only another example of Hedda’s selfishness affecting those around her. Tesman just lost his Aunt and now his wife has committed suicide. Hedda completely disregards others feelings, even those that cater to her needs and only want to see good things happen for her.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely side with Emily and her views on these events. Hedda's selfishness and desires were her only concern throughout the play. She didn't care about how those around her were affected by her actions. To me, she definitely gets a kick out of messing with others. She expresses her boredom in the text by saying things like “how mortally bored I’ve been” and “how horribly I shall bore myself here”. Since she is bored a lot, she has plenty of time to manipulate others. She uses her manipulation to get the information she wants out of others. In an encounter with Eilert Lovborg, he questioned Hedda by asking her what made him tell her things he has never told anyone before. Instead of a definitive answer, Hedda replies with the question “you think it was some kind of power in me?” and you can tell she knows exactly what she’s doing and tries to appear innocent. Hedda pursues everything she can in order to get ahead and will do anything to get what she wants. Another example I found of this was when Hedda has a conversation with Mrs. Elvsted in Act 1. Hedda fakes a friendship with her with the intention of getting information out of her for Hedda’s own personal game. Moral to be learned, Hedda is manipulative, selfish, and cannot be trusted.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that the pistol Hedda uses in the play is an important symbol in understanding her character. It becomes clear very early on that Hedda is manipulative and likes to be in control of a situation; whether those people know that she is in control or not. Hedda has no problem comforting Thea when she is upset about Ejlert seeming distant. Little does Thea know that Hedda and Ejlert have a history themselves. The pistol makes an appearance a couple times in the story before act four. Hedda jokes about shooting Brack; something most people would never even consider doing. But in this moment to Hedda, she is in complete control over the situation, including someone else’s life. It is a power play for her, showing that she is in control of this person and the dynamic of their relationship. In response to finding out that Ejlert killed himself, Hedda said “at last…a really courageous act…I say that there is beauty in this deed”. It shows that she admires Ejlert’s “bravery” to control his own destiny and take his own life. At the end of the play, when Hedda finds out she is at the hands of someone else other than herself, the thought it too much to bare. She does not want to live her life under the control of Brack; the idea that her destiny is in someone else’s hands drives her to kill herself. It is her one last chance to control her destiny.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Finnegan likes Hedda!
ReplyDelete"The simplistic story line and Hedda's elegance and turmoil made me completely love her too. She's so much more than a pretty face and an unsatisfied woman. She is dignified and crude, confident and unsure, she, like Eustacia, I think, BOTH have contradictions within themselves. "
As an add on to my Act 2 comment, I later realized that Hedda seems out to get Ejlert. I digested and really thought about Act 2 because I feel like Hedda is starting tmo show a different side of herself. She seemed like she was intentionally trying to get Ejlert drunk or tempt him so much that he can't say no. Hedda almost seemed scary, she said some very creepy things to Mrs. Elvsted and basically would not let her leave or even speak for herself. I really feel as if Hedda is about to start some serious issues between the Ejlert and Mrs. Elvsted.
ReplyDeleteAs I read the play I continued to gain sympathy for Tesman. Isban's descriptions allowed me to understand how caring and selfless Tesman was. He definitely was one of my favorite characters in this play because I loved how his down to earth personality made him such an easy character to connect with. I admired how patient and loving Tesman was towards Hedda throughout the play. He always managed to put Hedda's needs and wants before his own. In one instance Brack was discussing financial issues with Tesman and he suggested downgrading their living to save money. Tesman responded with, "I couldn't possibly ask her to live in some suburban house"(288). This event just goes to show how Tesman truly would move mountains to try to please his wife. Tesman would do anything for his wife, so I felt sorry for him that Hedda wasn't as invested in the relationship as he was.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Tesman was so happy and proud of his wife and wanted to show her off in any way possible. However, it was just a coincidence that he ended up marrying Hedda. She seems like she has no desire to truly love him and in many ways defy his orders or suggestions. For example, when he first showed Hedda Lovborg's book, he said that he's going to give it back to him at the soonest possible moment. But when Lovborg shows up at the Tesman residence later that day, Hedda doesn't tell him that she has his manuscript, and when he leaves, she even burns it.
DeleteI found the relationship between Hedda and Tesman to be quite an odd match. I believe that Hedda was too overbearing for Tesman because her large personality did not create an environment for him to share his ideas. But also their vast differences in characters caused Tesman to follow along with whatever Hedda believed. For example, in the beginning of the play Hedda commented on how their old piano did not fit the style of the rest of their furniture. Tesman suggested they could do an exchange when he gets his first pay check. But Hedda shoots his idea down and says they can just put the old one in the back room and buy a new one to take its place. I dislike how Hedda shoots down Tesman's ideas and doesn't even care to acknowledge what he says. It leaves me questioning how long their relationship would have lasted if Hedda did not end up killing herself.
ReplyDeleteI think you raise a good point about what would have happened if Hedda didn't kill herself. While I do have sympathy for Tesman like you said in your last post, I don't think Tesman would have the confidence to end his relationship with Hedda. And in the same way, I don't think Hedda has enough confidence to end it either. However, the confidence they lack is different. I think Tesman lacks the confidence to realize that Hedda isn't right for him. Where Hedda differs is that she realizes she doesn't match with Tesman. The problem with Hedda is that she does not have the confidence to change her life and better it.
DeleteI agree with what Andrew said about Tesman’s lack of confidence; however I disagree with where Hedda is lacking in confidence. She obviously wants a different life for herself, one where she is not married to Tesman. What she does not have is the confidence to go against the strict societal standards and leave her husband to pursue what she wants. Her reputation as a sophisticated, high-class woman in this society is too important to her to give up. In this time and place, leaving her husband and trying to accomplish her dreams independently would, in a way, have been social suicide for her. It is really unfortunate how actual suicide was a better alternative for her.
DeleteI definitely agree that Hedda and Tesman were not a good match. She only met him out of pity and never really seemed to be interested in him. I think a good question would be: Who would Hedda be a good match for? One could definitely think that Brack would be a good match, considering their relationship as friends and their hinted at affair. However, I don't think that they would ever work. They are too much alike. They are both very head-strong and do not adhere to the traditional beliefs (love, marriage, family) that would've been present at the time. Seeing that Brack would not be a good match and he was the only other single man in the play, I don't know who Hedda really would go with.
DeleteI definitely agree that Hedda and Tesman were not a good match. She only met him out of pity and never really seemed to be interested in him. I think a good question would be: Who would Hedda be a good match for? One could definitely think that Brack would be a good match, considering their relationship as friends and their hinted at affair. However, I don't think that they would ever work. They are too much alike. They are both very head-strong and do not adhere to the traditional beliefs (love, marriage, family) that would've been present at the time. Seeing that Brack would not be a good match and he was the only other single man in the play, I don't know who Hedda really would go with.
DeleteGrace Pasini says:
ReplyDeleteAfter finishing Hedda Gabler, I thought the same things about Hedda as most of you also thought. She was a pompous woman who had no apathy for others. Not only that, but she was also extremely manipulative, especially to Ms. Elvsted and Mr. Lovborg. Elvsted never should have given Hedda the benefit of the doubt. Hedda was mean to Elvsted in grade school, but Elvsted forgave her. Hedda continued to be controlling towards her, but Elvsted let it go. In fact, she seemed to look up to Hedda. All the characters looked up to Hedda (in the beginning). By the end of the play the characters, and myself, got the sense that Hedda was actually insane. The scene where Hedda burned Lovborg’s manuscript greatly bothered me. She was lying to everyone, but somehow got away with it. She knew it would tear Lovborg to pieces if his manuscript were gone. So why did she want him to be so devastated? Didn’t she have feelings for him? If so, she had an odd way of showing it. I was surprised, but also not surprised at all when Hedda gave Lovborg her gun and basically set him up for suicide. At that time in the play I was convinced Hedda was a sociopath. However, I was satisfied with how the story played out. I thought Hedda killing herself was a great way to put an end to a life she obviously was not enjoying and a way to free the other characters from Hedda’s crazy self.
Julia Freeman says:
ReplyDeletePOST #1
After reading the play, I found myself analyzing Hedda's character more than the rest. While the immediate conclusion is that she is a selfish, rude character with no regards to anyone except herself, I dug a little deeper and came to a few more conclusions as well. Hedda Gabler is clearly not the stereotypical housewife that one would expect to see in this time period. Women are typically raised in an environment that teaches them the skills they will need to carry out their duties as wives and mothers in the future. However, growing up under the care of General Gabler, Hedda is taught to shoot and lack compassion for others. This immediately sets her apart from other women in her community. While she refuses to submit to the destiny set forth for her as a woman, she still craves the life of independence and freedom. Ultimately, this desire becomes too much for her to shoulder, and she forgets her duties as Tesman's wife. She argues with him, fails to follow orders, and puts herself in situations that should be left to her husband's care. Her impossible-to-please nature is demonstrated almost immediately in the first scene. Upon returning from a long, luxurious honeymoon to a newly decorated house just for her, Hedda promptly begins to complain. She states that the piano in the drawing room doesn't look right, and when Tesman offers to exchange it, she is appalled at the idea and demands that they simply purchase another. Early on in the first scene, Tesman receives the news that the appointment that had been promised to him may not be as absolute as first thought. This immediately brings doubts to Hedda in regards to her decision to marry Tesman in the first place. This detail, however, is one of the few that makes Hedda similar to other women in her time period. Women tended to marry a man who could support them and care for them financially rather than a man whom they loved. Hedda, who has absolutely no affections towards Tesman whatsoever, did find his pending position at the university quite promising. Having grown up in a high class, aristocratic lifestyle, the idea that this man would have the financial stability to support her every wish couldn't possibly be turned down. Now that this position might not be his for the taking, she began to fear a life of mediocrity. On the other hand, Tesman is infatuated with his bride, and serves as the perfect husband to her. He has no demanding requests of her, and caters to her every desire. This in itself shows an immediate conflict within their marriage. While the husband is supposed to be the dominant of the two and make all of the decisions in the household, it seems that Hedda may just have taken over that role. And Tesman doesn't do anything about it! The thing that baffles me the most about this relationship, is that Tesman simply overlooks how awful and rude Hedda is to not only him, but his aunts as well. At one point in the first scene he suggests that she be kinder to Aunt Julia, following the hat incident, but that is the last we hear from him regarding her nature. This just proves who has dominance over whom in this relationship, making it inevitable that there be conflict somewhere in the rest of the play.
Then she adds:
ReplyDeleteOne of the most prominent themes that I noticed in this play was regarding Manipulation. The entirety of the play and the events that unfolded seemed to develop as a result of Hedda’s manipulation of those around her. The cause for this newfound hobby of hers was made clear almost immediately. During this time, women were not able to obtain an education or a job of any kind with which to fill their free time. Instead, they had to find other forms of entertainment. Hedda’s military background and desire to “change someone’s destiny” were also factors into this theme. She sought after power in any form that she could find it, and manipulation of the lives of others seemed like the perfect opportunity to both amuse herself and find some element of power. Kill two birds with one stone, am I right? Well, what started off as a game quickly developed into much more, proving the widely known fact that karma will come back and bite you in the you know what. I doubt that it’s a coincidence that her main influences are over men, which speaks for her methods of manipulation, her beauty and sexuality most likely. The most significant examples of her manipulation are over Lovborg and Tesman. Ultimately, there is a surprise twist at the end, when judge Brack is the only character who is able to gain the upper hand on Hedda. He knows that she gave Lovborg the pistol, but is willing to keep that knowledge a secret, for he knows that if it were to get to the police it would mean a huge scandal and societal downfall for Hedda and Tesman. In the end, Hedda is beat at her own game and her death almost represents her recognizing defeat and taking herself out of the “game” completely.
But wait! She's not quite finished yet.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hayley’s earlier post and her comparison of Hedda Gabler and Edna Pontellier. In both stories, the main female characters were trying to find themselves amongst a population of people who already knew who and what they were supposed to be. Neither woman wanted to become this stereotypical model of what a woman should be and knew that in order to be happy with themselves and with their lives, they needed to break that mold. You could almost say that we are seeing examples of women’s rights in these two books. While women are expected to marry, have children, and live the rest of their lives being the perfect wife and mother, these two women craved independence and the freedom to do what they wanted when they wanted. This newfound desire to stray from the beaten path is what causes the controversy over whether or not these characters are heroes or villains. On one hand, Hedda was cruel and mischievous and caused a lot of unnecessary problems amongst her friends just for the heck of it. On the other hand, however, she refused to succumb to the life that had been laid out for her by the expectations and normality of society. She saw what she wanted and she went for it, which may be seen as bravery in some eyes. I am in no way saying that she is a good person or one that we should look up to and strive to be, but there are elements of her story that are slightly admirable and to only look at the negative is a shame. The best part about literature is that there are two sides to every story, and the ability to see both is such a great experience and makes the book so much more interesting.
In conclusion to this play I want to have sympathy for Hedda but I just can't. Hedda is an extremely negative person, as I mentioned in a pervious comment, she likes death. After finding out that Ejlert was dead she wanted to know why desperately, when she found out he committed suicide she was almost overjoyed. "I say there is beauty in this deed", Hedda thinks that suicide is a beautiful thing. She cannot stand when other people are happy, but feeds off when people are in distress. When she later found out that Ejlert really didn't kill himself she was disgusted. Hedda was mortified he died because of a mistake, she wanted him to die the way she basically told him to do it. She was so concerned about shooting the gun on the temple of your lobe. I wonder what the significance of this is? Too get rid othe memory, or the thought processing?
ReplyDeleteIn my opioion, Hedda's suicide was predicatable. Throughout the play Hedda has been dropping hints and has been exreamly negative (How she was wearing all black and was saying that suicide is beautiful). Another reason why I believe she killed herself is because she cannot stand when she can't control things anymore. She went crazy when she found out that her secret was being held in the judge's hands. She doesn't have control of that secret anymore and she couldn't banked facing the consiquences of her actions.
Over all I did think this play was a good read. It really liked the significance of the settling and how it played into the play. I liked how the book was written in an Old English setting but was readable, meaning that I wasn't getting lost in unessesary words. It was straight to the point which is a type of book that I would enjoy.
Thinking about the play, I started to imagine Hedda in this day and age. In my opinion, she would be a totally different person. Women in this time have so many more opportunities than the women of Hedda’s time, and that is something Hedda strongly desired- opportunity, power, freedom, and independence. The whole reason she manipulated people was because she was bored and had literally nothing else to do that interested her. In today’s time, Hedda could go out and seize the day… heck, she could even run for president. The endless opportunities of today’s time would be more than entertaining for Hedda and she wouldn’t feel the need to manipulate anymore (probably…). Also, Hedda was extremely envious of the men in her life because they were, well, men. Today, there aren’t the same gender boundaries and expectations as there were in Hedda’s time. Women are, for the most part, on the same level as men. Today, Hedda wouldn’t have to feel insecure and upset that she was a woman. She could be whatever type of woman she desired. It is more accepted today to be an individual, in contrast to the 1800’s where Hedda was expected to be a beautiful, feminine, idle, maternal, and gentle woman. The jealousy she felt for men would be long gone if she lived in today’s time.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with all of Rachel's points. Although Hedda throughout the play is seen as a horrible person, this is definitely a result of the time period she has been placed in. If this play was fast forwarded out of the 1800s and took place in the society we live in today, Hedda would be seen in a totally different light. These days women who are in the search of freedom and going after their desires are seen as respectable and empowering women. This is exactly what Hedda was looking to become. The only reason Hedda did not follow these desires of hers was due to the standard for women during her time period. Women were expected to observe and support the men in their life. Women were supposed to help them succeed in any way they could. The focus was on men and not women. Hedda was raised to be independent by her father, therefore, I feel that she only desired freedom more because she was exposed to what men were allowed to do. Also I do believe that Hedda would not have gotten herself into so much trouble if she were allowed to be her own person. She was bored with her life because she couldn’t go out and do what she wanted just because she was a women. If Hedda were to have been placed in today’s society, I believe she would have been very successful because she would have gone after what she wanted and no one would have been able to stop her.
DeleteHi Rachel, I never thought about Hedda the way that you did, but I like the way you are thinking. I personally didn’t like Hedda’s character, but I wasn’t thinking like you were. Your perspective on Hedda makes sense. I’ve always thought Hedda had a boring life and that’s why I understood why she killed herself in the end. Now with your ideas in mind, I think Hedda had to make some fun out of her life and the only way she knew how was to create drama. I know you liked Hedda and a part of me liked her too. She was very impulsive and unconventional. I liked not knowing what she was going to do next. This made the play interesting.
DeleteI believe one of the chief reasons for Hedda's suicide (aside from the fact that she clearly has some form of mental disorder) is her husband's deep passion for cultural history, which she wants no part of. It became clear to Hedda that she could never love George after their honeymoon, during which he spent the majority of his time gathering information for the "cultural history of Brabant." Despite this, Hadda was far too proud of a woman to break her wedding vows and run away like Thea Elvsted, so the best scenario she could hope for would be for George to simply publish his book, become a well respected professor, and move on from his research. For this reason, I see Hedda's decision to give Eilert a pistol not just as a lapse in sanity but as a completely Machiavellian step towards her desired end result: with Eilert dead and his manuscript burned, nothing could have possibly overshadowed George's accomplishments. Unfortunately for Hedda, even though he no longer had any competition for the professorship, George decided to attempt to rewrite Eilert's masterpiece and proclaimed that it would be several months before he was done. At this moment Hedda realized that George would continue his tedious research even in the lack of any outside forces compelling him to do so, which may have been the final straw in her decision to end her life.
ReplyDeleteCharlotte Potter says:
ReplyDeleteIn Acts 2 and 3 we dig deeper into who the real Hedda is. We discover most of it through her conversations with the men from her youth. You begin to see more about her hobby of pistols and can connect her to Eilert Lovborg through the shooting and purposely missing Judge Brack. It seems that Brack knows her very well and can see past her fake attraction for George. It becomes apparent when Hedda admist that she does not want to use the word “love” when she speaks about George that she feels comfortable around Brack and she can confess her deepest emotions to him. It does not seem like she feels romantic toward him in any way, yet she still is more open to him than she is toward her husband. It makes me question how Hedda approaches relationships. She treats Mrs. Elvsted like a child even though they are both females in unhappy marriages. She treats her husband like a waste of space who is pathetic for trying so hard to impress her. Hedda is open and confides in Judge Brack who is more interested in her than she is him. And finally, Eilert is also able to guess that Hedda does not actually love George, and the two talk like old friends. If Hedda seems to relate to men more than women, why does she not connect with her husband? I think the problem lies in the fact that she settled into a marriage rather than pursuing whomever she wanted. She may resent George for the way he tries to make her happy because she knows she will never be happy with him. Hedda may feel as though the fact that she has to rely on someone inferior to her is taking away from her independence. I think the mean girl appearance is a front to mask her vulnerability because she is forced to live off of a man who she does not truly love. This is why she is mean to Aunt Julia and she tests the limits to which she can get George to cater to her. It is all a front to prevent anyone from seeing her weakness or vulnerability.
Something I find kind of humorous/ironic about the play is the fact that Tesman is portrayed as an intelligent and educated man, yet he isn’t smart enough to see that his wife is constantly manipulating him. He isn’t smart enough to see his wife’s dissatisfaction with her new life, or that she is very bored all the time. He also doesn’t realize he annoys her, which we, the readers of this play, notice he does more often times than not. This led me to sympathize for both Tesman and Hedda alike. Tesman, though sometimes annoying, comes across as a pure and good man. He constantly tries to please Hedda, and is blinded by his infatuation of her. I also pity him because she feels no positive feelings for him in return. Yet I also sympathize with Hedda because, in her eyes, she is married to a man so oblivious that he can’t see that she isn’t happy.
ReplyDeleteI find Tesman to be a self-centered person as well as Hedda. He wanted to be a well-respected man and felt that Lovborg might stand in the way of his own research and job prospects. He was definitely not as mean-spirited as Hedda but he definitely wanted to make his mark on the world. If he never left the manuscript in the hands of Hedda she never could have destroyed it. He unknowingly played a part in Lovborg's demise. They were both blind; he was blind to her happiness and she was blind to everyone but herself.
DeleteAfter having some time to digest this play, to me Mrs. Elvsted was one of the characters who displayed a lot of courage in this play. She made a very bold move that changed the way she lived her life and the way society looked at her. This would be: she left her husband for another man!! I have this picture painted in my mind, that Mrs. Elvsted was the perfect Victorian housewife, and clearly she did not want to be that woman anymore, so instead of having a pity party for herself she did the only thing she could do. Mrs. Elvsted is similar to Eljert in this situation because she doesn’t play by the societal rules just like Eljert when it came to his drinking problem (in the past). When I think of the play as a whole, I can’t pick out one other character that made a decision that would (potentially) harm the way they were looked at as a person, but in the long run was the best decision to make for themselves. At the end of the play, however, she probably couldn’t help but ask herself what she was going to do with her life now, the man she was trying to go after is dead, her friend is dead, and she left her husband in hopes for a better life.
ReplyDeleteAfter closely reading the play a second time, I picked up on several pieces of dialogue that hint at Hedda possibly being pregnant. Other people have already pointed her pregnancy out, but I believe that it provides more insight into her character. Each time another character hints at it, Hedda becomes extremely defensive and dismisses it. For example, on page 32, Judge Brack suggests that a "solemn responsibility" is coming upon Hedda. This suggests that she will soon have to deal with raising a child. She is irritated and says "Be quiet! Nothing of that sort will ever happen!" If Hedda is indeed pregnant, it is clear that she is vehemently opposed to the idea of raising a child, especially Tesman's. This could be one of the pressing factors in her suicide. She has so much disdain for Tesman that she can't imagine herself having a family with him. While it likely wasn't the deciding factor in her taking her own life, it could have influenced her decision. Of course, if Ibsen did not intend for Hedda to be pregnant, then this means nothing. However, if she was pregnant, which I believe she was, then it adds another layer to her decisions and demise.
ReplyDeleteIf Ibsen intended to add that Hedda was pregnant you're absolutely right that it would add another layer to her personality. I personally believe that I would dislike her more if she was. I don't want to start an abortion argument but if she was pregnant and killed herself along with a baby I would truly loose all sympathy towards her. To me it doesn't matter if you were surrounded bymisery in your current situation. It's human nature to me to want to care for a life. If she was pregnant and took her life along with the baby's my point of view on her would continue soaring downwards.
DeleteI think this is what Tesman was hinting at when he insisted that Hedda was "filling out" during their honeymoon, and Hedda repeatedly replied that it wasn't true. I think if Hedda was pregnant, she was in complete denial about it. Considering how Hedda tries to maintain a dominant and manipulative role in all of her relationships, the idea of her being completely overwhelmed by motherly duties would probably seem too menial for her to handle.
DeleteI find it interesting that for such a strong willed character Hedda was so defensive and dismissive of the idea of being pregnant. Could it be that it shows weakness because she was physically intimate with Tesman although she remains adamant that she married him for stability and money? Or did she just not feel ready/not want to care for a child? Throughout the story she stands up for her actions and even tells Tesman immediately after she burned the papers that she did it. I'm curious to why being pregnant was something she wanted to hide.
DeleteI finished Hedda a short time ago, but I really wanted to state that the way it ended was really the only logical way in the sense that if Hedda had done anything else it would have been entirely out of character. Hedda is deemed cold but she also has a theme of being very dramatic and poetic when it comes to how things should be in terms of love and death and honor. When Eliet dies, she chooses to follow the same method of dying to be with the man she truly loved rather than live in extortion and false adoration with her husband and the judge. Her last act, playing the wild tune on the piano, spoke of her more than any of her dialogue. She is a wild character, thrilling and alarming but altogether beautiful that only a small few can ever really tame.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you Chelsea. Any other ending to the play would seem out of place and not like Hedda at all. She was manipulative and demanding so when things started not going her way she realizes that she needs to kill herself to prevent a scandal or anything worse from arising. The fact that she commits suicide also relates back to her character and how she needs to be in charge of everything in her life. Including the way she plans to die.
DeleteI really liked Tesman's character because he was so simple; his goals are clear, his humanity is rather pure compared to other characters, and his relationships with other people can be easily analyzed. However, Tesman comes off as very naive, and his view of his wife becomes clearer when he is excited to tell Aunt Julie that Hedda loves him. The fact that he recognizes that she has no displays of love beforehand, and does not seem to question it, suggests his leniency to trust too easily. This trait would be beneficial to a couple who are loyal to each other, but Hedda takes advantage of this trust because it is in her nature to be manipulative. Specifically, it is quite clear that Hedda was using Tesman for his money because she loses any desire to be around him once his position as a professor is challenged by Lovborg and the couple's wedding honeymoon was made extra long and expensive. In addition, Hedda wishes to be in control of other people, as she admires Mrs. Elvsted for controlling Lovborg, and her viewpoint of being superior to Tesman is a delicacy of a relationship for her. Back to Tesman, his life is rather tragic that he is surrounded by death, and is unable to see the real tragedy is that he never knew what was going on even as it constantly went by him. First one of his aunts dies and only Aunt Julie has the humanity to share his pain, as Hedda shrugs off his struggle and giving off a feeling that "the weak should die anyway". Lovborg kills himself and Tesman will most likely never know why or that Hedda had the biggest influence over his friend and rival. Of course, his wife Hedda kills herself and leaves Tesman believing that she loved him, even as she probably wanted to kill him first. The man is just engulfed by death and remains oblivious to any conflicts; his ability to just enjoy most of what he has, who he is with, and his work is a blessing unto itself, and something Hedda could have learned from if she stopped looking down on other people and their emotions.
ReplyDeleteYour comment remindes me that Tesman was the epitome of the phrase "Ignorance is bliss." He was totally unaware of Hedda's true feelings for him, or any of the darkness going on around him, and that is both a good thing because he will never be unhappy, but it is also a bad thing, because that gives people like Hedda the opportunity to use him as she wishes. I'm actually glad that Tesman never caught on to the bad stuff that was happening to him, because while he was naive and simple, he was a good man with honest feelings and intentions.
DeleteAlso, Mr. Mac initially asked: " Oh -- and shouldn't this play be called Hedda Tesman?", which raises a good discussion. Hedda had a couple names in this play: Hedda, Mrs. Tesman, Hedda Gabler, and Hedda Tesman (Hedda should be separate from H. Gabler and H. Tesman just because that's how she is casually addressed, while the other two names have more significance). This play should not be called "Hedda Tesman" because that last name associates her to a man with whom she has no connection. While she may be married to Jorgen Tesman, calling this play "Hedda Gabler" gives her the freedom that she dreams about; Lovborg always used to call her that full name when Hedda had more independence to love, but she commands him to stop: "Lovborg: And now I must learn never to say Hedda Gabler again - never - as long as I live.' Hedda: 'Yes, you must...That was my name - in the old days - when we two knew each other" (Ibsen 67). Also, Hedda has the people close to her call her Hedda, with "Mrs. Tesman" being the name that she's formally addressed by; its like a test that you have to pass to get closer to her.
ReplyDeleteAllison Salina says:
ReplyDelete1.I completely agree with Alli in that Hedda’s suicide was in some aspects expected. In the entire play, she hardly had anything positive to say about her life and she was constantly wrapped up in conforming to what society expected of her. She never did what would truly make her happy. She got married to a man she did not love and was prepared to live a life she was not content with. Throughout the play she was never grateful for what she had. She instead was thinking of how things could change. So, at one point, she just gave up and instead of letting the world slowly consume her, she decided to end her own life and leave the world with, what she believed was, an act of beauty.
2.Throughout the play Hedda makes it obvious that being kind to people is not her top priority. However, I wonder if she even tries at all. Hedda says how she had only pretended to think that Miss Tesman’s bonnet was the servants. She claimed how “…these impulses come over me all of a sudden; and I cannot resist them”. I cannot help but to question if this is entirely the truth. It seems as though she hides her cold heart and malicious tendencies behind her claim that she is not able to control them. As if it is her way of justifying anything she does, no matter how horrible it may be. She obviously never liked Miss Tesman, seeing how she was the only person who was truly skeptical of her nephews new wife. She sensed how their love was not genuine and that made Hedda uneasy. Personally, I do not believe that it was an impulse that came over Hedda to make offending remarks but instead it was always an intention. She did not care to get close to her husband’s new family and so she never was going to give a valiant effort to be nice to them. They way that I looked at the play was that Hedda was only kind towards others when she wanted something, like her husband giving her the manuscript or Lovborg taking her gun. Ultimately, she was so bored that she filled her time with aiding others to their doom for amusement.
Why did George keep referencing to everyone throughout the play how well Hedda was “filling out” ? At first, I was taken aback by this odd sort of compliment he was giving to his new bride, which would have been why she would always dismiss these comments. However, then I inferred that George must meant that Hedda may be showing signs of pregnancy (or at least he hopes she is). In this case, she either dismissed his comments because she was not pregnant and didn’t want him to get his hopes up, or that she knew she was pregnant, but wanted to ignore the fact she was. If she was pregnant, this could have contributed to her feeling trapped, now not only in her marriage, but into motherhood, a role, which based on everything we know about Hedda’s character, isn’t very fitting to her.
ReplyDeleteDuring the play Hedda makes a comment that she does not want to become pregnant. She feels that children would take away her freedom. I also believe that she craves attention which is one thing that she would certainly lose if she had children. She would be the one giving the attention instead of receiving it. So like Samantha said, she is not fitting to be a mother and if she had found out that she was going to be that could have been one of her reasons for the suicide.
DeleteI definitely think Hedda was trying to ignore the fact that she was pregnant. Not only does this make her feel trapped but throughout the novel she shows us that she thrives off of feeling control and knowing what is going to happen next. Her pregnancy could very well have been unplanned and could have contributed to her spiraling out of control and feeling as if there was no other option but to kill herself. Because she had no "motherly" instincts, it makes sense she would put her own feeling first and not consider the baby or how George, who genuinely loves her, will react.
DeleteShe definitely did not care that she was hurting Tesman when she killed herself. She was caring only for her feelings and wanted to escape from this scary responsibility of having a baby. Hedda not once thought that Tesman would be losing his wife, and his baby in addition to just having lost his aunt, or how he would feel after losing so many important people in his life.
DeleteWhat I find peculiar about this story is that Hedda Gabler clearly has some form of mental disorder or illness. This play was written in the 1890s, a time when mental illness was confined to the very small category of "insanity" when now we know that mental illnesses span far beyond that. In the 1890s, people who were diagnosed with insanity were placed in crowded, badly managed asylums, and the image put on asylums likely encouraged the idea that mental illnesses and the facilities made to help were not liked in society. That's why I wonder why Ibsen wrote a character who was clearly mad in more ways than one. Hedda is a spiteful character in the beginning, but she just seems spiteful and nothing more. But as the play goes on, we see that she's cold and unfeeling to anyone else's needs or desires but her own. She plays with pistols like they're not dangerous objects, and she becomes jealous of Evlsted and Lovborg's relationship, to the point that she'll do almost anything to stop it. Hedda feels no remorse when she burns their "child," nor does she really show any remorse for the death of Lovborg, other than his death was not magnificent like she had hoped. I feel that creating Hedda was Ibsen's way of trying to understand, and bring attention to the little known or cared for mental illnesses of the time.
ReplyDeleteHedda was in many ways a sociopath. I agree with you Alex that she felt no remorse for anything she does that causes other people pain. She also is very manipulative towards everyone around her. She manipulated Mrs. Elvsted into telling her about Lovborg and how she felt about him. Hedda also manipulated Lovburg into killing himself with her gun, at least in my opinion. Hedda was very ill and could have used some help if mental illness was not thought of as insanity back in the 1890s. In today's society she probably would have been put through a lot of therapy and possibly on medication to reduce the amount of discontent she had.
DeleteManipulating is definitely a word that defines Hedda. Everyone is manipulative in some ways, but she's not sorry that she does it, and I don't think she even recognizes that her actions are causing pain. And even if she did understand that she was causing pain, it might not even bother her either. It makes me wonder what she would be diagnosed with, if she were to be diagnosed at all. Was she manic, a sociopath, did she have a bipolar disorder? I am interested to know what went on in her mind that we couldn't see or read through her dialogue and interactions.
DeleteI agree. I think it would have been really cool if the play had been written from her point of view and that there could have been a narrator that said exactly what she was thinking. I have a feeling that she would have seemed an even worse person if we had heard her thoughts. Another thing she had no remorse for was killing herself. I believe suicide is not selfish in any way, but in her case it was. In my opinion she wanted Tesman to suffer because she had suffered being married to him and having a boring life with him. By killing herself, she also killed a possible baby that she may have conceived. She didn't even care that she would be killing her own child along with herself.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree, she probably would've been even nastier in our eyes had we known what she really thought about everyone, not just the words that she said, because despite being a terrible person I think she had some sense of social decorum and a (possible) filter for her words. Who knows. She was definitely not a good character, and she was very selfish in most of her actions. But, it wouldn't be very in character of her if she had done anything to benefit other people. She was purely benefiting herself.
DeleteAll Hedda cared about was herself, so of course she wanted to benefit herself and herself only, even if it meant ruining other lives.
DeleteI must agree - Hedda could very well have been a sociopath due to her manipulating and cruel nature. She seemed simply mad for most of the play, and for me, personally, she was an awful person. However, I must comment in regards to Alex's last comment. If the play was written from Hedda's perspective, I can't decide if that would make me hate her more or allow me to sympathize with her. If she truly is insane/a sociopath, I can't help but wonder what goes on in her head. If she is insane, I feel that her thoughts would not be nearly as cruel as what comes out of her mouth. Perhaps, she just merely doesn't understand what's going on since she is crazy. Although, who really knows. She also could simply just be cruel, but it does make you wonder if she doesn't understand what's going on.
DeleteI must agree - Hedda could very well have been a sociopath due to her manipulating and cruel nature. She seemed simply mad for most of the play, and for me, personally, she was an awful person. However, I must comment in regards to Alex's last comment. If the play was written from Hedda's perspective, I can't decide if that would make me hate her more or allow me to sympathize with her. If she truly is insane/a sociopath, I can't help but wonder what goes on in her head. If she is insane, I feel that her thoughts would not be nearly as cruel as what comes out of her mouth. Perhaps, she just merely doesn't understand what's going on since she is crazy. Although, who really knows. She also could simply just be cruel, but it does make you wonder if she doesn't understand what's going on.
DeleteThe thing that I would like to know is if she just says what she thinks or if she attempts to filter it to either hurt the person or maybe hurt them less. I would absolutely love to have read this play in first person just to comprehend her psyche. Seeing as I grew to like her when she was being her cruel self I feel that I'd be able to sympathize with her a even more.
DeleteHedda definitely had a closer relationship with her guns than any actual people in the play, so I think there must be some symbolic significance to them. I think they must either symbolize power, or the exciting life she knew before her marriage. Power would be the most obvious choice, given that after she knew that Judge Brack had information that could launch her into a scandal, Hedda used a pistol to end her life, which obviously eliminated any power Brack had over her. However, some parts of the play suggest the guns might represent excitement for Hedda, especially when Miss Tesman said "she's General Gabler's daughter! Think what life with him must have been like. Remember seeing her riding with him?" From this early quote, it is clear that Hedda had a close relationship with her father, a relationship which must have seemed particularly thrilling in comparison to her marriage with Tesman. As the pistols belonged to General Gabler, it would make sense for them to represent Hedda's relationship with her father. Lastly, as Act II opens, Hedda is enjoying herself by playing with these pistols. Being one of the few times in the play where Hedda is actually happy, this further suggests that these guns represent excitement, not just power.
ReplyDeleteTo add on to your statement, I believe that the reason Hedda is so attracted to the pistols is because they represent her aristocratic life that she has now lost. She is stuck in a bourgeois life that does not meet her standards. The pistols remind her of her life she once lived, and allow her to escape for a brief moment from the monotony of her current life. This escapism is taken to the extreme when Hedda shoots herself with the pistols, which she believes is the only way of truly liberating herself from her situation.
DeleteI found Hedda to be a fascinating character despite the fact that as I person I found her to be selfish and inconsiderate. She grew up in a strict household since her father was a general which probably fueled her need for freedom and to be in control. She then went on to find a husband who truly loved her and seemed to be willing to do anything for her even if it means stretching the budget. However, instead of trying to turn her life around she just continues to live unhappily. She does not share her true feelings with her husband and seems to bring everybody down that are around her. She encourages manipulative to not return the manuscript to Ejlert and then destroys it so that he can't. She then gives Ejlert a gun so that he can kill himself in a "beautiful" way as she puts it. She follows this up by killing herself. With all of these actions she leaves a wake of destruction behind her. She does not consider other peoples feelings yet she is so manipulative that people seem to like her. No one calls her out on any of the things that she does. They just let her continue to live her life doing whatever she feels like without regard to other people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Jessica. She really doesn't have any regard to anyone around her and she slowly keeps destroying the lives of everyone around her. She also destroys her own baby, which remained unborn when she killed herself.
DeleteGreta Schmitz says:
ReplyDeleteIn response to Patrick's latest comment, I agree with Hedda Gabler being the most fitting title. Hedda herself is so independent, she exclusively employs her own agenda. Calling the story Hedda Tesman would feel wrong after meeting Hedda and discovering that she does not function for anyone but herself, she is autonomous and completely her own person. Hedda would not allow her own name to be replaced with a man who she holds no weight with. Although Hedda and Tesman are bound by marriage, she would not allow him to have claim over her in any way she can control.
I really liked Hedda as a character. Of course she was not the kindest of people, but she was extremely entertaining, my favorite part being the beginning of Act II. She yells, "Now I'll shoot you Judge Brack," raises her pistol and play shoots. That is serious dedication to not only a joke but to setting a precedent of acting however Hedda pleases. This exchange is also very telling because, although we learn that Hedda and the judge have history (and he would like to have that relationship continue), she demonstrates that she just doesn't care. She has gotten herself into and unsatisfactory situation and she might as well have as much fun as she can. Also, Hedda reminds me of one of those people who always complains that they have "like no friends" but they are ALWAYS hanging out with someone. Hedda puts off an air like she is not only isolated in her house, but by people. This is not true because literally every person that enters the house will not leave Hedda alone and acts like her best friend.
The character Lovborg in some ways can represent society's affect on its members. He desperately tries to please others and be his best. On page 34, Brack says of Lovborg's book, "But it has been very much praised, I hear," to which Lovborg replies, "That was what I wanted; so I put nothing into the book but what every one would agree with". In an attempt to be successful, he omits, most likely, his own thoughts and opinions and replaces them with people-pleasing ideas. This is comparable to society, in which people function to please others and not his/herself. Society is also quick to outcast a person or thing as soon as it has served its purpose. Hedda no longer feels like she needs Lovborg to mess with anymore and hands him a pistol, having full knowledge of what he will plan to do. In these ways, Lovborg is representative of the perils of society.
In response to Sammie, Hedda's pregnancy might even make her suicide easier to understand. To me, her suicide did not coincide with the choices I watched Hedda make throughout the book. Although she was impulsive, she was also selfish and did only things for herself. If she was pregnant, it I think it would better fit her narrative. Like you said, it would contribute to her isolated and trapped feelings, and would definitely both her future and choices to come.
As far as character development in this novel, I think Henrik Ibsen did a phenomenal job developing each character as much as he did in such a short amount of time. The entire play takes place in one room, within a short period of time. I think what Ibsen does well is he gives each character a major trait that, as readers, we focus on and organize them throughout the play. I think its impressive that Hedda is made out to be a terrible person yet there is still an amount of sympathy that demands to be felt, at least, I felt sympathetic towards her. While Hedda is selfish and doesn't really care about anyone else's well being, we must rationalize that she is the way she is because of her past as well as the fact that she may have a mental disorder that has not been diagnosed, as others have said. Another example of outstanding characterization is George Tesman. George seems like an example of a truly good man who tries to do right by everyone. by the way George tries to rewrite the manuscript, one would assume he is also quite educated. If he is fairly educated and a kind man, why cant he see behind Hedda's games and tricks and the fact that she truly ins't happy?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. I think another character which Ibsen tried to attract sympathy for is Tesman's Aunt Julia. She has in a way just lost a son since she was the one to raise Tesman and he has now left journey through a life without her in the focus. On top of this, her sister Rina is dying and she must devote her time to watching her decay. She fits a distressed widow stereotype. Hedda's coldness to her husband's aunt helps to characterize Hedda as a selfish wife.
DeleteTaylor, I also found this to be very interesting. All of the characters in the novel were explained so that the audience could connect with them and feel sympathy. Ibsen made it clear that Hedda was up to no good, but still asked for sympathy in her character. This reminds me of the murderers in In Cold Blood. Truman Capote wrote in a manner trying to establish sympathy for Perry and Dick. He wrote about their struggles growing up and hoped this could somehow make the reader feel sympathy for them. In both books, I found it very hard to overlook what the characters had done. I can't get over the fact that Hedda aided Eilert's suicide and killed herself as well as Dick and Perry killing a whole family.
DeleteI agree with Corey that Hedda's guns have symbolic significance, but I think they are more of a representation of herself than of power. To her the guns represented her life before she was married and all the excitement it came with, however to the reader I believe they mean more. In the first act when Hedda was speaking with Mrs. Elvsted, Mrs. Elvsted informed Hedda that she and Lovborg were close but that there was still a women that drove a wedge between them. She said she didn't know who she was, just that the mysterious women pointed a pistol at Lovborg and threatened to shoot him. Although Mrs. Elvsted meant this quite literally, symbolically this could mean that even though they had a strong connection, Hedda was sure to destroy Lovborg if he let her. Later, in the third act, Hedda has re-entered Lovborg's life and he promptly expresses his desire to kill himself. In response the ever so helpful Hedda Gabbler hands him a gun and basically tells him to go for it. Or does she? By giving him the gun, I think that Hedda was really giving herself to him, in her own way she was telling him that she loves him even though she knew it would destroy him. When he died, Lovborg shot himself in the chest, aiming at the most over-used symbol for love- his heart. It was his way of saying that he loves her too, even though he knows it will destroy him.
ReplyDeleteVictoria, I like how you explained the guns as symbols of Hedda. I agree that they represent herself. I especially think this because she told Judge Brack that her guns will make her life more interesting. She also seems to "play" with them a lot and fool around. The guns were very important symbols when she handed one to Lovborg because this expressed her deep feelings. She was in her own way trying to tell him that she cared for him, but with her mental state, she was too unstable to realize that this meant her lover would be gone. When having realized this and that she was being questioned about how Eilert had one of her guns, she killed herself. This reunited her with her lover. The guns represented Hedda and her willpower to influence others throughout the book. It is important to note that the guns were very powerful because Hedda was also depicted this way seeing that her husband felt it necessary to make her as happy as possible when buying their new home as if she would ruin his life if he did't.
DeleteFrom the moment Hedda was first introduced in the play, I didn’t like her. As the play progressed, I found her to be very annoying and petty; she was really getting on my nerves. She doesn’t even respect her husband, who loves her so dearly. He bought her the house that she said she wanted (although she lied about it) out of love for her, but she doesn’t even have an ounce of love for him. All she seemed to care about was being above everybody else and money. I also don’t like how she’s all up in everybody’s business. Towards the beginning, she kept questioning why Mrs. Elvsted was at her home, and she wouldn’t let up until she finally gave an answer. I found that annoying because Mrs. Elvsted doesn’t answer to Hedda.
ReplyDeleteI also think that it was very easy to get annoyed with Hedda. She does want to be above everyone and seems to focus on this throughout the novel. She says that she is bored with her life which really angers me because lots of people are going through worse situations than her, Judge Brack points this out by saying, "'I don't think you've ever lived through anything that...that has challenged you,'" (Ibsen 58). I also agree that she was into people's business too much. I can't understand why she gave Eilert the gun knowing what this meant. She was into his business so much that she even told him to take his life in a beautiful way. In a way she gave him the "a-okay" to commit suicide. She wasn't the friend who was to pull him out of his misery, instead she led him into ending it as well as his life.
DeleteAs I kept reading, I started getting annoyed with Mr. Tesman: how can he not see that Hedda doesn’t even care for him? She is constantly giving him the cold shoulder and he doesn’t even realize it. Also, Hedda is even rude to those around her, but he doesn’t seem to notice that either. I feel like he is so blinded by the love and adoration he has for her that he can’t see the destructive effect she has on those around them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he was simply blinded by love, but also blinded by his prospective future. He was set to earn a big promotion that would have set up his life perfectly. He would be able to pay off his house that he believed Hedda loved. She would be able to live the social life she was yearning for. He was probably thinking just a little bit longer until she was happy again, until their marriage would be happy again and their life would be set.
Delete*Warning: Slight spoilers to Game of Thrones*
ReplyDeleteAfter deep contemplation about Hedda and her charector, I have come to the conclusion that she is in fact Circe Lanester. I have heard others compare her to Ragina George, the mean girl from "Mean Girls," but she is way more powerful, intelligent, and complex then Ragina. Circe Lanester, the queen of the Iron Throne and all of Westeros, is a spiteful woman who is extremely manipulative. She manipulates everyone around her in order to get what she wants, much like Hedda does. Circe only married her husband, Robert Baratheon, in order to become a queen, and killed him in order to get more power, even though she first used him to get more power. Although Circe has children, they are with her brother in order to keep their bloodline pure, and she uses her children in order to get more power because she has such a strong influence over them and can get them to do anything. Circe loves killing and also finds buety in it, much like Hedda. Also, on a side note, Mr. Tesman is much like Robert Baratheon I the fact that they are both clueless and oblivious to their wives sociopathic tendencies. That however, is their only similarity because Mr. Tesman loves Hedda, and Robert Baratheon is indifferent to Circe.
I found it very interesting that Eilert seemed to touch the lives of ever character in the book. Mrs. Elvsted was worried that he could be up to no good again and made it her duty to follow his actions to try to ensure his safety. Hedda was involved with him because she gave him the gun which he used to kill himself. Eilert seemed to be the character that took the spotlight off of Hedda, who is the main character, and caught the attention of both the audience and the characters. I think it was very intriguing how the characters felt they had to finish the book Eilert started. Mrs. E. and Mr. Tesman both being very close friends to Eilert made it their one job to finish his book. I think Eilert was a very complicated character because although there were points where he seemed to have fixed his bad habits, we could tell that he still wasn't stable.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Henrik Ibsen did a very nice job in hiding the real meaning of the "appointment" that was between Eilert and the Tesmans. When I first read this part on page 41, I thought that the appointment was dealing with an appearance in court. I am not quite sure of the real meaning of this appointment. My understanding of this appointment was to "clear the air". I felt the importance of this was to get there to be no tension between Tesman who had married Hedda, the one who Eilert was at once in love with. I am still unsure of the clear meaning of this meeting, but I know since the Judge had to get involved that this was somehow developed into a legal issue. Also, the Judge said, "'Oh, no-the financial arrangements are, um...there's no great rush as far as the money's concerned,'" (Ibsen 41), so money is an important part of this appointment. Also with the idea of money exchange and how the Tesmans spoke about their house to Judge Brack and how their lives were going, I think this appointment could also have had something to do with the Judge helping the Tesmans making their lives the best they could possibly be.
ReplyDeleteCharles Perosino says:
ReplyDeleteDue to the circumstances in her life, Hedda has been unable to grow as an individual beyond childish schemes turned tragic. She wa always given exactly what she wanted up until the very end, and was never truly questioned in her ways of manipulation and many secrets. This certainly fostered an environment of stagnance rather than growth when it came to Hedda as a person. Her actions in life were certainly terrible and unjustifiable, but can also be understood from an outside perspective, as she was never given a chance to deal with not having the freedom todo as she pleases until the end. These childish instincts are also represented through the title using her maiden name "Gabler" rather than her married name, connecting Hedda's true self to her childhood, not her time as an adult.
I failed to see Hedda's actions in the same light, Charles. The only thing that held Hedda back was society, and she learned many ways to work around even that. While her actions were certainly impulsive, I saw them more as bold moves than childish antics. Hedda's greatest strength was her inability to empathize with others. By breaking the golden rule, she prevailed in rising above those she targeted. Furthermore, using Gabler as her last name further justified her independence, that she was still the same woman despite having a husband. Even her suicide demonstrated not weakness, but an unwavering grit to live her life as her own, free from the grip of any man.
DeleteEmma P. says:
ReplyDeleteI found it quite interesting that Hedda wasn't phased by Lovborg's death. She says “A feeling of release, in knowing that there really can be such a thing in the world as free and fearless action”, saying that she finds it almost liberating/exciting that he took his own life. It makes me sort of uncomfortable that she isn't even upset that someone committed suicide. As much as I like Hedda I feel like that's just wrong. I guess I shouldn't really be surprised because she is so twisted. This is such a strong example of how Hedda is detached from the reality of the world. She sees people as her toys that she can mess around with. Also do you guys think that Henrik Ibsen intended for Hedda to be a heroine or a villain?
I was thinking about this play a lot after I finished it. I can see why she acts the way she does. The setting of the play is in the Victorian era, and women basically couldn’t do anything except cook, clean, and look pretty. In the play, Hedda was constantly so bored and longed for a sense of entertainment; this could be why she likes to pick on others when they come by. Maybe she found torturing people entertaining: it gave her something to do.
ReplyDeleteAs to her wanting to know everything about everyone, maybe she does it so that she can try to “live” through other people. Take Eilert: he went out in the world and was an alcoholic. By listening to him talk about his life, it was as close as Hedda could get to experiencing an untraditional life.
Basically, I think Hedda is crazy, but at times, I feel for her. She’s holed up in her house all day with nothing to do, nobody to talk to. When people come to her house, she is able to find a way to entertain herself by bothering them. It’s not an ideal way to handle a situation like this, but it’s better than doing nothing!
After reading your comment, I find Hedda less manipulative and crazy than I originally thought. Thinking of the time period, it is true that women didn't get to leave the house often and do many things, but Hedda is not like ordinary women and cannot stand such boredom. When Brack came over to her house before the party, she even complained about how bored and lonely she was. Hedda needed someway to entertain herself, but unfortunately turned to manipulating and torturing people as her way of entertainment. Even though her ways of fun seem sick and evil, I see her as less of a crazy person and more of just a girl that needs something to do.
DeleteWas I the only one that found the end of the play to seem sort of both fast and slow? After Lovborg killed himself there was a sudden gust of energy that entered the Tesman household as George Tesman and Thea scrambled to recreate Lovborg's book that Hedda had just destroyed by tossing it in the fire. However I also found that this scene moved rather slowly when your attention shifts to Hedda. She calmly moves about the house letting the two have their fun trying to recreate the book as she goes to get one of her pistols from the drawer. Then she moves to a separate room and starts to play the piano which seems out of place in this scene. One of her close associates has killed himself and she's just playing the piano like she's completely unfazed by his death. Then finally after her husband told her to stop with the piano, she shot herself. It seemed like Hedda finally realized that she was no longer in control as parts of her life crumbled around her.
ReplyDeleteI think that too. The different "speed" could be due to how she is in a very different mood from everyone else. While Tesman, Mrs. Elvsted, and Brack are somber and planning for the aftermath of the recent deaths, Hedda is rejoicing. Her ominous "I will be quiet in the future", along with previous foreshadowing of her suicide, indicate that this was part of the plan all along, and her strange rendition of dance music was part of a celebration for her impending freedom.
DeleteAssuming Lovborg's death is the climax, Hedda's is just the falling action, as ugly as that sounds.
I was a bit surprised at how the other characters reacted to her death, though. The way Lovborg said "in the temple" caught me off guard--I suppose the almost odd specificity might have been because it was right there in front of him, or it could be a translation thing. "One doesn't /do/ that kind of thing" from Brack is even more surprising, as he had been threatening her with ruin just a few minutes ago.
Slightly unrelated: could the guns be a symbol for power? Given to her by her father, capable of instilling fear and causing death, "I still have one thing to kill time with"...
Throughout the play, Hedda displays characteristics of someone who is very tired. Yes, it's quite extreme, but upon inspection I realized that much of her bad behavior is not dissimilar to the behavior or an exhausted and cranky person. Her blunt reaction-turned-insults to the house, Miss Tesman's hat, Lovborg's slippers, and Aunt Rina's death can be seen as a very extreme form of I'm-tired-so-I'll-just-say-whatever-mean-things-come-to-mind-first. In addition to her habit of snapping at people, her other, "more evil" actions resemble things one might do if very sleep deprived as well, such as laughing almost maniacally over burning the book, obsessing (over Lovborg returning with vineleaves in his hair), and even romanticizing death.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense that she would be tired, as she is, as many others have mentioned, a victim trapped in an unfriendly environment.
The details of Hedda's pregnancy seem very confusing to me. I am unsure why she would tell Brack in the beginning of the play that she was not pregnant, and later on reveal that she was. I understand her not wanting to tell many people about the pregnancy, but she knew that people would be able to tell eventually. Could she just have been trying to keep it a secret from Brack? Was she trying to deny the idea altogether? I'm just puzzled by why she would pick and choose who she lies about the pregnancy to. I'm especially confused as to why she would lie to Brack. She is closer to him than her own husband, and doesn't directly express a desire to marry him.
ReplyDeleteThe comment that is marked as "unknown" which was posted August 30, at 10:45 were written by me, I'm not sure why it didn't appear as my name.
ReplyDeleteHedda is definitely not like other women of her time. She doesn't want to raise a family, wants her own freedom, and didn't really want to get married in the first place. I know that Hedda mentioned that she met Tesman at some sort of party or social gathering and saw that he was alone, so she started talking to him. I think this only foreshadows how Hedda and Tesman will not have a very strong relationship. Hedda was in no way attracted to Tesman, and would never really have noticed him, had he not been all by himself. I think that Hedda talking to him out of sympathy only shows that she never really did care about Tesman. I'm even more surprised by the fact that she did end up marrying him for a variety of reasons. One reason is that she wants her own freedom. If she wanted to be free and do what she wanted, why would she even get married, especially to someone who she only knew out of sympathy? From the get-go, Hedda can't stand to be near Tesman. She was completely bored and miserable with him on their honeymoon, that she herself insisted that they go on.
Overall, I think that Hedda's actions before and shortly after the marriage show that Hedda and Tesman never really were meant to be and would never last.
Julia Lyon says:
ReplyDeleteAs many of you have already said, Hedda Gabler is far more than meets the eye. Her initial impression forces the readers to find her rather manipulative and deceitful. Now, don’t get me wrong, she is definitely a daring woman in the way she confronts people. However, I don’t think we open our eyes to the trouble that all of the other characters have caused as well. Obviously, Hedda cannot be considered innocent in the slightest, but her actions are direct results of her feelings toward Lövborg, Judge Brack, and the lack thereof toward her husband. As he admits throughout the play, her marriage to George Tesman was motivated primarily by her public image. There is no love between them and, frankly, no friendship. They do not connect in anyway and Hedda is often highly annoyed by him. We see this, at first, to be rude and disrespectful. As I looked deeper into it, I would act the same way if I spent every moment with a man I had no feelings for. It is torture to be tied to such a boring relationship and she doesn’t know how to deal with it. She connects much more easily and fluently with Judge Brack. As he stops by the Tesman’s house, they find each other wrapped up in the other. Brack’s presence brings out another side of Hedda. She is far more friendly and respectful to him. When she hears news of Lövborg’s return she freezes. This man really gets to her in a way that the other two cannot. Of course, Lövborg is polar opposite to the other two men. He has an uneasy past, which Hedda was a part of, which he is running away from. Hedda tries to pull him back into that part of his life as she wishes to have some sort of power over him, as I assume she did before his scandal forced him to leave. Although they bring out the worst in each other, their relationship has the most sparks. Unfortunately, this relationship, if pursued, would have been rather immature in the sense that it is what they want, rather than what they need. Lövborg and Hedda are both ridiculously off balanced and unpredictable. If they had pursued their relationship together, I think the story may have ended with the same fate. They both spiraled out of control and ended up committing suicide. Together, they would have destroyed even more lives and hurt far more people in the process. Although Hedda is seen as the villain of this story, I find that there are several villains pitted against each other.
As much as I found myself disliking Hedda as a character, I also found an aspect of her in myself, her sarcasm. The second I read the line, "Thank you! So much" (Ibsen 42), I saw myself in her. Oddly, I say that line all the time, and while I was reading it I heard it in my own tone of voice. Now, I still don't like Hedda because she uses her power over the men in her life in such a negative way, only manipulating them for the worst in most cases, the line managed to maker her seem more along the lines of a character that I could relate to. While continuing to read on, I found myself searching for other characteristics that I see in both myself and those around me. It became easier to read the novel because I wasn't just reading it for school at the point, I was reading to search for a new character.
ReplyDeleteI found myself often feeling sympathetic towards Tesman and his situation. He is truly in love with Hedda, but she is simply using him for her prospective status. She believed she had bargained for a life of luxury and status, a social life she had always lived and expected. Poor Tesman was trying his best to give her everything she wants in her life, including purchasing a house for her with all he does and doesn't have because he believed it would make her happy. I often found myself wondering if he knew how little he really means to her. She often referred to the marriage as a bargain that they had not agreed upon. She was often disappointed by his lack of status and lack of wealth. It made me wonder why she even agreed to the marriage in the first place. There were plenty of other suitors vying for her, why did she choose Tesman?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Tesman knew exactly what he was getting into. While Hedda certainly wasn't a model wife, Tesman clearly doesn't mind. She is of much higher class than Tesman, which was clearly a big deal way back in the 19th Century, but more importantly, Hedda adds excitement to Tesman's life! Before Hedda, Tesman was a young, well behaved man with morals, as boring as the world around him. Now he has a woman who has the guts to burn his rival's entire manuscript - a feat he could never accomplish. The relationship between Hedda and Tesman is completely image driven - Hedda wants to someday be famous for marrying a successful writer, and Tesman is just happy he married an eligible bachelor of such high class, one who is sure to make his friends jealous. I consider this relationship more of an arrangement - Hedda gets a man who buys things for her and takes her to nice places, and Tesman gets a beautiful wife who he can brag about to all of his friends.
DeleteAlthough I found Hedda Gabler to be a rather bland play one thing I did enjoy were the few bits of humor the author included. An example of which is when Hedda told Tesman that she burned the papers and Tesman got very angry at her. She then told him he did it for him and he was so happy she would do something for him out of love. Although not funny in the traditional sense it is ridiculous how oblivious he is to Hedda's true opinions as well as the extent to which Tesman blindly yearns for Hedda's love and care even when she shows no signs of it. This may be closer to irony or some other literary element but to me it was funny and also very human.
ReplyDeletePepijn chips in:
Delete"I very much agree with you. I was pretty fascinated by how blind Tesman seemed to what was going on with Hedda. I assume he just thought that she loved him so he never worried about how she actually felt, but it seems like it's too obvious for him not to even notice anything. It's also possible that that's how he thought Hedda was since she came from an upper class family. "
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was not a huge fan of this play, however, I understood the feelings of Hedda throughout the story. She appeared very stressed and bothered as the play progressed. In the beginning, after arriving back home from their trip, she was disrespectful to Julia Tesman, calling her hat old and ordering that everything be to her liking. Typically, when people return back from a vacation, they feel relaxed and refreshed. In contrast, she appeared much more anxious like something was on her mind. As the story moved on, and the reader discovered the background between her and Eilert, the the reader begins to realize that Hedda is in fact stressed and suppressing her feelings. We can also see that Hedda has been trying to prove that she has free will. She held back her feelings in the beginning but they all came into motion as the end of the play approached. By giving Eilert the gun near the ending, she was proving to her self that she could do what she wanted. She was maintaining power, and thus the stress she showed in the beginning was released in the form of manipulation. However, after killing both Eilert's book and allowing Eilert to kill himself, the judge found out that Hedda had given Eilert the gun, and now she must remain quiet so no one else can find out. Hedda being the manipulator she is, isn't able to remain quiet if she wants to continue to prove her free will, so she kills herself. there was a short time when she acted as though all her stress had disappeared, but in the end, it came back to her, and she was no longer able to do what she had set out to do.
ReplyDeleteI found the manuscript to be a very interesting symbol in the play. The manuscript represented both Eilert's soul and the idea of nonconformity with the norms of the time period. Lovborg mentions to Tesman, "Because this is the one. The real thing. I put my whole self into this book" (Ibsen 47). The idea behind this quote is that it proves that Eilert considers it his lifeline. It is everything he has accomplished in life, which means it is also a part of him. In addition, since the manuscript was written about the future, it is innovative and new to the society of the time. The book strayed from the norm. We can see how the manuscript is reinforced as a symbol when Hedda chooses to burn it. Shortly after it is destroyed, we realize that Eilert has nothing left to live for and commits suicide. The manuscript was thus a part of him, and when it ceased to exist, he no longer had anything in his life. Hedda also says that she is burning their child, which shows that the manuscript was vital to Lovborg's life. A child is everything to their parents. It is what keeps them living from day to day, and once it's gone, nothing is ever the same.n Thus, the manuscript was an important and interesting symbol of Eilert in this play.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Hedda is twisted. After pondering Hedda's actions for about a month now I'm beginning to suspect that her actions weren't to be in control but more so in protecting her husband's social status. I realized that perhaps if Lovborg's manuscript became popular that Mr. Tesman's personal life and social status may have taken a hit. So in this way I can see her as a heroine, maybe selfish but still looking out for Mr. Tesman. It's not and observation but more of an idea based off of my own opinion.
ReplyDeleteAllison Salina says:
ReplyDeleteLike many others have mentioned, I too have sympathy for Tesman. He was not from a wealthy background and he earned every penny that he had, yet he was willing to spend a great deal of money on a honeymoon trip and villa for his wife. He recognized that she was higher-class and therefore had more sophisticated needs and he went to great lengths to make sure that she was satisfied. But in return, Tesman got nothing from Hedda. She continuously disregarding anything that made her husband happy, such as his family and his ‘morning slippers’. Tesman felt lucky to have the opportunity to spend his life with such a beautiful and desired woman, but she never felt joyous to have him.
There's nothing better than a strong female in a patriarchal society, especially one as smart as Hedda. Like Devin had brought up a little bit further up in the blog, Hedda shows a lot of similarities to Edna in The Awakening. One of the major differences, however, was how they went about their rebellion. While Edna went boy crazy, Hedda kept her cool, and to society, she was just another woman. She exerted her control quietly, and more precisely than Edna. As hard as it is to put ourselves in the 1800s, life was so much different back then, especially for women - they had absolutely zero power over anything. While Hedda certainly could've asked Eilert not to publish his book, or told Judge Brack that she would not be blackmailed, as a woman, she didn't have much right. Hedda was smart, she lived her life to the fullest, and when she realized her life would no longer be hers to live, she ended it. I think that's how a lot of us want to live our lives, but out of fear, we conform to society's standards and live a long, safe life void of thrill or meaning. It's better to risk everything we have than to never get what we want, and Hedda knew and lived by that standard.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to Allison's comment above I believe that even though throughout the plot Hedda doesn't seem to be in love with Tesman I can definitely see why she loved him at one point but soon got bored. She fell in love with the way he treated her and the way it seemed he wished to give her the world, not so much his personality which seemed to be a little less outgoing than she requires. Maybe she loved the attention and admiration that was promised with him. It seems as though she's too much after her own interests to be in love with someone else, seeing as that action requires personal sacrifice Hedda wouldn't be willing to give.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the play, I find Mrs. Elvsted a pretty oblivious and dumb character over the events that occur through the play. In the first act, for example, when Hedda tries to get her to spill the truth of her home life and her reason to find Ejlert, Mrs. Elvsted made it very clear that she didn't want to speak about it. Somehow though, Hedda was able to talk about their "friendship" back during school in order to get her to speak out. I find this very dumb for Mrs. Elvsted because even though she had good intentions to not say the truth, she is easily persuaded by Hedda to speak it. In addition, I find this very dumb of her because when Hedda reflected back to their times at school, Mrs. Elvsted recalls how she would pull her hair on the staircase and was very scared of her. If I was her, I wouldn't be telling someone who treated me like that the story of my life, but yet she does without much hesitation.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason why I think Mrs. Elvsted is oblivious is when she talks to Hedda about the other woman that Ejlert is interested in. Although he hasn't said much about her to Mrs. Elvsted, she does mention that when the two broke up, she threatened to shoot a pistol at him. Knowing that Hedda's father was a famous general and how she later plays with a pistol, It is surprising that she hasn't been able to connect the dots, especially later on in the play when Hedda and Ejlert start hanging out more. Even Ejlert mentions that she is stupid at all matters.
Like many others, I have a lot of sympathy for Tesman. The main reason why I have sympathy for Tesman is because of how unenthusiastic Hedda is toward his interests. A good example of this is in the second act when Ejlert comes over after inviting him. When Ejlert announces that he will not be competing with him for professorship at the local university, Tesman is head over heels that he now has a good chance of getting the job, but when he shows his excitement to Hedda, she shows no enthusiasm and tells him to leave her out of the matter. Throughout the play, Tesman tries to impress Hedda in many ways, but despite his good attempts, Hedda never really shows any emotions over it. Overall, I feel bad for him because he is trying so hard, yet gets nothing back.
ReplyDeleteAlthough when I first started reading this play I was not a big fan of it, I really grew to like it as I continued to read. Hedda was an extremely interesting character; a devious woman who knew what she wanted and did anything to get it. As Hedda stated in the play, she wanted someone to take care of her and provide for her so she found Tesman- the perfect person to do this for her. However, she was quickly bored with him and his expertise to the point where she did not really love him anymore yet she stayed with him, just showing little interest in his hobbies and endeavors. When Tesman was not around, Hedda found comfort in the judge and she told him everything- things that she would never tell Tesman. Even though she truly did not love Tesman, he provided for her and gave her a house to live in while she was able to confide in the judge for all of her emotional needs. It's a win-win for her truthfully and although she was manipulative, she had a good life set out for her (for the most part- some setbacks still) and was a very strong character in this play who had what she wanted.
ReplyDeleteAlthough when I first started reading this play I was not a big fan of it, I really grew to like it as I continued to read. Hedda was an extremely interesting character; a devious woman who knew what she wanted and did anything to get it. As Hedda stated in the play, she wanted someone to take care of her and provide for her so she found Tesman- the perfect person to do this for her. However, she was quickly bored with him and his expertise to the point where she did not really love him anymore yet she stayed with him, just showing little interest in his hobbies and endeavors. When Tesman was not around, Hedda found comfort in the judge and she told him everything- things that she would never tell Tesman. Even though she truly did not love Tesman, he provided for her and gave her a house to live in while she was able to confide in the judge for all of her emotional needs. It's a win-win for her truthfully and although she was manipulative, she had a good life set out for her (for the most part- some setbacks still) and was a very strong character in this play who had what she wanted.
ReplyDeleteReading through Hedda Gabler was an experience where I was more interested in figuring out in my head the looks of the house rather than the minds of the characters. But once I looks past the cranky exterior of Hedda I realized the gears were turning in her head and my attention gravitated towards how we manipulated everyone around here and trying to figure out her next move. I disagree with the others in that I don't feel bad for Tesman. Yes it was a shame he sold part of his heart and his manhood, but he still did it willingly. What did he initially see? A woman of a high caliber willing to overlook the slums he came from because she loved him for his heart. Hedda saw a victim, a heart on a pedestal attached to a weak man that would be putty to her wit. Mrs. Elvsted was just as bad. Hedda saw someone that she could pull back into a cycle of abuse and the poor distressed woman allowed the control because she lacked controlled in her own. And Finally poor alcoholic Lovborg. Hedda’s true love for he could live out a life that she could not dare to do. Elvsted and Hedda fight over which man Eilert will be and in the end he chooses Elvsted only to have Hedda play the ultimate trump card. First she does away with his soul, the manuscript, then his body. She couldn't allow him to ruin her manipulation and plans with Tesman. Once she realized that his reckless and exciting way of life leaks back to her she saves herself the trouble of a scandal while she still breathes.
ReplyDelete