The year: 1890; the country: Norway. Hedda Gabler returns from her honeymoon to a house and life she despises, with a husband for whom she has no respect. Into this unhappy home bring two men who would become her lover – one an upstanding judge, and the other a brilliant but dissolute man with a scandalous past.
Just a word of warning about Hedda. You probably won’t like her, but she’s a fascinating literary creation. She’s more complicated than you think (if the responses of earlier classes are any indicator). The actress Kate Burton called Hedda “a female Hamlet.” I’m not sure I‘d go that far, but she’s more than just a “mean girl“. There are reasons for everything she does, (although sometimes they are dark even to her). Take the “bonnet incident”. You can take her at face value when she tells Judge Brack that she doesn’t know why she does things like that.
But for a key to understanding Hedda look closely at the nature of her relationship with Lovborg — especially in the past. (Hint: they were never physically intimate.) What Hedda wanted from the relationship and what Lovborg wanted were too vastly different things. Another key is when Hedda talks about people staring at her legs (or ankles, in one translation), so she refuses to get off the train. She seems tough and in control, but in reality she's quite vulnerable.
Oh -- and shouldn't this play be called Hedda Tesman?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
The book certainly was interesting, I'll give it that. I can't exactly tell whether or not I liked it, though. I do like plays, yes, but this kind of overreached the boundary. Just...out there.
I enjoyed the characters, although that is to be expected, since this is a character-driven play. They all stood out very distinctly, and they all had their own place in the play as a whole. In the end, they were all equally important, so it's nice to see some equality.
Hedda Gabler-Tesman wasn't exactly my favorite, the cold-hearted witch that she was, but she certainly was the most deep. You can't call her flat-out evil, because she's so much more than that. I feel like out of all of them, she's the most three-dimensional. Especially the final pages, in which she shoots herself in the head, you can tell that she isn't used to her plans unraveling like they did. She acts like she's in control all the time, but she really isn't, and as shown at the end, she's willing to do whatever it takes to avoid being called the loser.
I actually laughed at the final line of the play, in which Judge Brack simply states, "Good God!-people don't do such things!" There's a good amount of irony in that statement. After seeing the lengths that Hedda would go to, it's that sort of quote that really ties up the end.
Whether or not it was a "masterpiece" is arguable, but overall, it was a good play. It more or less accomplished what it set out to do, in describing Hedda Gabler and the life she lived.
I have just started this book and I have to say it is not my favorite. I find the plot very hard to get into, however that may improve with time. I do have to agree with Sebastian though, the characters have already started to define themselves in just these first few pages, to the point that you feel like you have always known them. I have a feeling that Hedda will become the most hated and most loved (pitied) character in the play.
I was not a big fan of Hedda Gabler. I felt that the characters, with the possible exception of Hedda, were one dimensional and lacked substance, because each one represented just one main quality throughout the story.
A lot of parts of the story were confusing to me as well. The phrase "vine leaves in his hair" appeared repeatedly through the last 30 or so pages of the play, and I did not understand what it meant at all. Also, why did Hedda commit suicide? Was it because she was scared of what her community would think of her if they found out that she gave Eilbert the gun?
I did notice that Hedda's character is very similar to Edna's in The Awakening. Both were easily bored and distracted by their lives, and they felt that the only way out of their suppressing lives was suicide. The stories were relatable to say the least.
Another note: I don't think that this story should be called Hedda Tesman because Hedda never wanted to be married to Mr. Tesman. She didn't respect him or love him or really acknowledge him all that much, so she never really took on his name emotionally, just legally.
I thought the play was very interesting; definitely not a book I would have picked out for myself. I have to agree with Sebastian and Sima when they said that most of the characters were very one-dimensional, excluding Hedda. I thought it was very curious at the end when the only comment Mr.Tesman had to make about his wife shooting herself was that she shot herself in the temple and he used his over-used phrase of, "Fancy that!"
I have finished reading the book and I have to say that I did not really enjoy it, although Hedda is quite the women and her motives for doing the things she did often interested me. I believe that her relationship with Lovborg was a primary influence in the things that she did as well as the greatest influence of her death. She did some awful things but I believe that she was not always fully aware of the consequences of her actions, such as giving Lovborg the gun.
Like Sima, I thought of "The Awakening" as I was reading, due to the similarities between the two women. They were both written in the 1890's so it was interesting to see that people were noticing the shift of the female role in both countries around the same time period.
I have finally finished this book. It took me a long time as it was NOT my favorite by any means. As Sima was, I am a little baffled by the phrase "vine leaves in his hair". Is it a reference to something famous, or should we have dug a little deeper to find a more metaphorical reason for it?
I believe that Hedda committed suicide because she felt lost with in herself. She should have been happy at her perfect house, and utterly loving husband, however she just could not be happy. She needed control over everything and she was losing control over it all. When Eilbert killed himself, it almost gave her an excuse to do the same.
As it seems to be the general opinion of this play, Hedda Gabler was not my favorite either. I did not find myself struggling to finish it, but I absolutly would not call it a page turner. I feel the plot of the book is a story that has been told over and over, a woman unsatisfied with her life and everyone in it. However, it was interesting to discover the different aspects of Hedda as the play continued.
After completion of this book, I find that I do sympathize with Hedda. Although her death was not a tragedy, it was sad to see her inability to adjust to her new lifestyle. She wanted life to be so beautiful and she desired such a high standard of living. When she found her new life was not as satisfying as expected,her only choice was to leave as she felt was up to her standard.
However, I found Hedda also incredibly unlikeable in how manipulative she was. She enjoyed toying with others emotions, including Ejlert and Brack, just to provide entertainment. Just the fact that her one hobbie was guns showed that she liked to be in control of others.
In general, I thought this play was interesting.. but certainly not amazing. The ending did make a statement in the irony it provided, but it would have been nice if perhaps there was more plot.
Another thing I forgot to mention in my last post...
Was Hedda really pregnant during the play, or was it just wishful thinking by Tesman? If she was pregnant, that certainly makes the ending much more interesting...
It completely slipped my mind to bring up the subject of the "pregnancy" until I read Meredith's comment. I really am not sure whether she was pregnant. At some points in the book I was absolutely positive that she was not pregnant, however at some points I was positive that she was. When her husband was talking to her and eluding to her carrying a baby, he seemed too confident for it to merely be a fantasy. However, with the odd nature of this play, I would not put it past the author to have such a ridiculous fantasy!
Contrary to what most people said, I kind of liked Hedda. She's fascinating. My affinity for her made this a very quick read. She's cold, calculating, and seems to have no remorse for the things she does...kind of like a sociopath. She uses the people in her life for entertainment, as pawns in the creation of the beautiful life she imagines for herself. Sadly, the standard of beauty she craves for her life is unattainable yet she still obsessively pursues it.
Her coldness is intriguing to me because I'm completely the opposite. I am emotionally involved in every aspect of and with every person in my life. It impresses me that one can have such a distanced way of living life. Yes, it keeps Hedda from experiencing good emotions, but it also protects her from the bad ones too.
The most impressive thing about Hedda is that she gets what she wants in a very direct way while still seeming subtle to the person she is manipulating. For example, when she speaks to Mrs. Elvsted for the first time, she gets all the information she wants about Lovborg under the guise of friendship; in actuality, Hedda really detests the woman (she talks about burning her hair!) but just wants information about Lovborg.
Hedda Gabler is a sociopath. That pretty much sums up the mood of the play.
After reading all of the summer reading, though, I do have to say that this is by far my least favorite out of the trio. I think both "A Moon for the Misbegotten" and "In the Time of the Butterflies" greatly eclipse this in terms of readability and interest. It remains to be seen if it has as much importance as well.
In my opinion, it really doesn't fit in with the other two books, and is the odd man out in this situation.
I unfortunately have to agree with my fellow students when I say that I did not enjoy Hedda Gabler very much. It just seemed like another one of those plays that just droned on. Although it was clear that Hedda wasn't happy with her current situation, I was unable to find the root of her problem; and that made it frustrating for me to read.
Another reason I believe that I didn't enjoy this story is because I was unable to connect with any of the characters. When you can connect yourself with a character inside of a book it makes it that much better. In Hedda Gabler however, the lives of these people seemed uptight and boring.
I do have to agree with Meredith on the point that some of the manipulative things that Hedda did were quite interesting. She would act cute and kind at one point and suddenly turn mean. Although it made me not like the character as much, I found it entertaining since some of the other characters remained a static profile throughout the story.
The shocking end event turned the play into a tragedy. Commiting suicide, although selfish and cruel, is a very adult decision. I learned in my psychology class last year that children look at suicide as an end to a certain situation while adults realize that suicide means the end of their life. Hedda understood completely what she was doing and unfortunately felt that taking her own life was the only way out.
To answer the question of why the book is not called Hedda Tesman , I believe that it is because Hedda never changed after the marriage. She still had the same yearnings that she did before marrying Tesman. The references to her past life, and her love of the pistols, her treasured family heirlooms, show that she has remained very much the same person, and is in no way feeling attached to Tesman.
As an overall view, I didn't think the play was anything fantastic. I found it very predictable. From the beginning Hedda was playing with the pistols and it became obvious to me that not only was she the one referred to in Lovberg's past, as well as how the story would conclude.
I agree with what everyone has been saying about the characters being one dimensional. It was rare that they showed more than one emotion, and none of them were dynamic at all. The only character who changed was Hedda, and even that was just an exaggeration of her earliest traits of cruelty.
If Hedda had really been pregnant, that shows how much she despised the life she led with Tesman, to not even grant him a small piece of happiness in that of having a child.
This book was an interesting read. It had a very confusing plot that at times seemed to digress to minor, unneeded details. I do not enjoy reading plays and although I found A Moon for the Misbegotten to be a pretty good read, I did not enjoy reading Hedda Gabler.
I found the characters to be very unlikeable. They were all scheming in one way or another and none of them came around in the end. Unlike in A Moon for the Misbegotten, where Josie realizies her father is playing her and avoids trapping Jim in his scheme, all of the characters continue their devious schemes until the end of the play.
I found Hedda Gabler to be a very strange play; the characters were all very hard to like. Hedda was a very cold character, but clearly the most interesting one in the play. Hedda most likely came off as lacking compassion because she was so unhappy with her life and there was nothing she could do to fix it. Henrik Ibsen created a society that was impossible for Hedda, along with all the other characters in this play, with no clear way to better their lives. Hedda was strong minded character, and she knew what she wanted and that wasn’t a life with her husband George Tessman. Even the title of the play shows how unattached Hedda was to George. While she was married to him the title of the play is Hedda Gabler not Hedda Tessman. This shows that Hedda didn’t want anything to do with her husband and while she was married to him legally Hedda had no emotional attachment to him. I believe that Hedda ended her own life not as an escape from her unhappy life, but as a way to gain control in a society that wasn’t designed for a character like Hedda. Hedda knew what she wanted out of life but her society didn’t allow her to be the person she wanted to be and gave her no control. To Hedda death wasn’t an escape it was just a way to gain the control she so desperately wanted.
I definitly have to agree with most people on this book, it is very interesting and not one of my favorite summer reading books. I couldn’t connect to the characters at all and I felt like for most of the book I couldn’t understand what was going on. It was confusing to me. I agree with a lot of people that most of the characters were very one dimensional and I think that was what made the book so confusing to me. The reason I think Hedda committed suicide was because she could not make sense of her life. She disliked her husband and wanted to be with two other guys. She could not just live a simple planned out life. I think she needed something more, a little more adventure to her life to make her happy. Overall, though, to me it was another play that just went on and on and felt like it was never going to end and there was never going to be a point to it.
I do not think that this play should be called Hedda Tesman. I believe that Hedda was a force unto herself, almost a seperate storyline in the play. Her actions never seemed to fit in to the actions of others and she was constantly manipulating everyone around her. Hedda was always acting for her own selfish reasons, in the role of Hedda Gabler, not for love or for her marriage, in the role of Hedda Tesman.
I will agree with most of my classmates by saying the book/play wasn't to my personal liking. However, it was very intriguing & interesting to read of a character such as Hedda. Honestly, I don't think I could ever understand or even talk to a person of her nature in the real world. I couldn't stand her constant manipulation & certain actions which almost appeared juvenile, but it was those sociopathic actions that drew me into her character. I believe she was the only character in this play that I was actually interested in because, like everyone has said before me, the others seemed so static, monotone & boring. Even though this play wasn't to my taste, it is a very good play because it was interesting & made the reader, well at least me, think about it & try to fully understand Hedda's actions throughout the numerous events being depicted. You could tell throughout this play that there was something building up in Hedda, almost as if she were going to burst, but of what no one knew. Then, all of a sudden, when they find Hedda after her suicide, you realize that that scene was that so called "burst", even though it surely was a shocking way of coming about that. This play certainly does tie together & it was an interesting read, but not one that I would be interested in from reading the back cover for example.
After reading the book a second time I have decided that Hedda was pregnant. From the very beginning of the book, Tesman was making comments about how much Hedda had "grown". Each and every time a comment was made Hedda would change the subject really quickly. I think the pregnancy was the thing that threw Hedda over the edge and made her life not worth living. In some ways she was still a child herself.
I'd like to first agree with Briana and say that this book was difficult for me to get into. The did one of two things: bored or confused me. Definitely my least favorite out of all the summer books we had to read.
Even though i didn't like the book as a whole, that's not to say that i didn't like Hedda as a character. She's playing one big game-using people she crosses in her life to play with, to suit her and entertain her. Her ability to mannipulate others was quite interesting; it made the book better in my opinion. She has control over so much, yet she can't create the life she wants. It's almost as if she let it play out naturally maybe she could have gotten what she wanted. It's almost like controlling time-to fix one thing but in response another thing is affected. I guess at first she came off as smart, "superior" in a way to the others. Eventually though, her character grew tiresome, just the same cold, pathetic actions.
I am not a fan of literature that is too heavy on thoughts and feelings. I find it hard to notice details in this format. Unfortunately, this play fit that mold perfectly. I had to read many sections over again, and even now, I'm not too sure of what went on.
To me, Hedda needed the most interpretation. She never really said flat out that she did not like her situation as Tesman's wife, but I found that her interest in Eljert's emotions and her listlessness around Tesman could show that she was unhappy with him and would rather be with Eljert.
I thought her suicide was her final controlling act in life: she did not want to be with Tesman and would rather be with the deceased Eljert, thus making suicide her only way out.
On the Hedda Tesman/Hedda Gabler front: I found either title plausible. Hedda Gabler could show her independence and her will to make her own choices. Hedda Tesman could be the name she does not want, thus being a symbol of her bad situation and the thing that needs to be fixed. Hedda Tesman would be a little more subtle in meaning, but both could possibly work.
After reading this book, I decided it definitely wasn't one of my favorites.
Like A Moon for the Misbegotten, this play had a major character who defined them self each with certain characteristics. But while A Moon for the Misbegotten had several three dimensional characters, I think that Hedda Gabler only had one.
At the beginning I didnt't really like Hedda. She seemed so unsatisfied with her life and impulsive with her choices. Also, she had everything she could ever want, a nice house, and a loving husband who would do anything for her. I dont see why she was so unsatisfied but i feel like because of her impulsiveness, she committed suicide without even thinking. It was like a cry for help but i dont think that she realized that by escaping her problems, things wouldn’t get better.
Also, another reason I don’t particularly like Hedda was because of the whole situation with her being pregnant. I still don’t understand if she actually was. If she was, then it would make me mad that she killed herself and ruined the life of not only a developing baby but of a new father. But then again if she wasn’t it would make me mad because it would just be another factor contributing to the idea that I think she is selfish and just wants attention.
To go along with the question, should the play be called Hedda Tesman, I think most people would agree no because she didn't want to be Hedda Tesman. She wasn't satisfied with her life as a Tesman (her husband, her home, her growing "child"). Also she is more fond of her life as a Gabler, then her life as a Tesman.
I did not care for Hedda Gabler all that much, but unlike everyone else was able to get into the story I think a little easier.
Hedda was a manipulative person and very cold it seemed. The play I think would have been a little more interesting if read aloud by different people allowing each one to develop the character in his or her own way. Judge Brack was by far my favorite character in the way he controlled Hedda's fate at the end of the play.
Hedda Gabler I think helped understand the transformation of other women in male dominated societies I have read about. Keeping in line with the plot of the story Lovborg and Hedda's relationship was the most interesting. She really was so self absorbed she would ruin others for her happiness, yet everyone pitied her. I thought that was a bit strange.
Hedda Gabler was a good way to start my reading for the summer but I was hoping for a more, to be blunt, inspiring story and heroism looks like I missed on book number one but having read them all I did get the chance to read a wonderful book about heroism. Hope everyone’s summer is going well. See you all soon.
Although I didn't really enjoy reading Hedda Gabler, it was not my least favorite book. I had a lot of trouble getting started, but it got better as it went along (probably because it is short). I thought that Hedda was a very complex character and it was hard to figure her out. She seemed very snobby which was first illustrated with the bonnet incident, and followed by many more. I feel like she thought that she was too good for Tesman when in fact, it seemed to me like he was too good for her. I thought that he deserved a lot more respect than she gave him.
As Sebastian said, she tries to act like she is in control all the time in front of other people, but we learn by the end of the play when she commits suicide, that she isn't.
I think that it is a sad story because she doesn't really have many close friends that she actually likes which I thought made it especially odd when she gave the pistol to Lovborg. Perhaps, as Brianna said, it was to give her an excuse to commit suicide herself.
I believe that Hedda killed herself in the end because she realized that she was no longer in control of her life. THroughout the whole play she had been in control of herself and had begun to exert her control onto others, such as Lovborg and Mrs. Elvsted. However, by the end of the story, her plans began to unravel as Judge Brack came to her after Lovborg killed himself. Brack knew that Hedda had given Lovborg the pistol and Hedda realized that Brack coming to her personally meant that he was going to use this information to exert his control over her. Although Hedda may have been able to survive by being in control of only her own life and not the lives of others, she knew that she could not stand to live with someone else in control of her life as Brack would be. In order to escape the terrible future she would face being controlled by Brack, she killed herself. That is the reason that I believe she shot herself at the end of the book. The only other possibility that I thought of was that Brack came to tell Hedda what he knew and gave Hedda the opportunity to take her own life, rather than be arrested and humiliated in front of the town.
I have to agree with Devin about why Hedda killed herself. I was very confused the first time I read it, but I reread parts that I did not understand, and it seems that Hedda's life was all about control. She needed to control everything going on in her life, from her honeymoon to the people around her. By the end of the novel, her control was slowly being taken away from her, so it follows that the only solution she could come up with was suicide.
I think that Hedda was pregnant, but was avoiding the idea of it entirely. She didn't seem to want to be pregnant, and she obviously was not in love with her husband. A baby is also another thing that messes up a controlled life, so the idea of being pregnant was probably threatening to Hedda. If she was pregnant, I think that probably had something to do with her suicide.
It seems to be a trend but, I too didn’t like this play. It was hard to get into and nothing too important happened until later on. I thought it was funny how easily Hedda could manipulate her husband. He was very ignorant and thought the ground that Hedda walked on was made of gold. How wrong he was! Like others said earlier, Hedda was pure evil. This is best portrayed in the bonnet incident.
She wanted to think she was in control. But as it turns out, she never really was. When she moved back to her home town in the big huge house her life begins to unravel. In the end she realizes this loss of control and ends her own life. This, I feel, is an incident were she shows a lack of control over what’s happening in her life. Granted, taking one’s life is one’s own decision and nobody told her to do it; but she lost total control and dealt with it in a childish and insecure way.
As for the title, Hedda Gabler is a better choice than Hedda Tesman. She was never really connected with her husband except, of course, by law. He loved her but she hated him, so she was still her own original self, which is Hedda Gabler.
I have to agree with most of the comments I've read. I don't really care for this play too much. Hedda Gabler was not the type of person I enjoyed following a story to. She unlike the other characters in the other books, was more out for her own means. She didn't truly care for anyone else. Her manipulation irritated me. The way she acted as if Tesman's Aunt's Bonnet looked like the servant's. Then she addmits later on that she did that on purpose just because she wanted to upset his aunt or something. Lovborg says she's not happy at one point in the play. He was absolutely right about that. The way she ended her life so abruptly let you know how not happy she was and how self-centered she was too. Honestly, I couldn't stand the book. Hedda aggitated me I guess. But her character was definately a shocking one. She's not "Hedda Tesman" because she never loved her husband. Never was truly a part of him and so kept her true identity of Hedda Gabler. If I'm right, there were Gabler's guns at the beginning of the book, right? So may be her shooting herself in the end has to do with her title.
As I'm reading all of the comments, I have to agree that all hints in the book do seem to point to Hedda being pregnant. I believe Devin is right about Hedda needing to be in control and when she found she couldn't control anymore she decided to kill herself. Her insecurities and possibly the pregnancy could have also been leading factors in her decision to kill herself.
On another note, the play should not be called Hedda Tesman because she clearly did not want to be married. To her the marriage was one of convenience, or perhaps I should say inconvenience. Either way she was unhappy with the relationship. She was very much an independent and manipulative woman that would do anything to get her way. It's sad that she would rather die than not be in control.
I didn't like this play at all, and thought it was by far the worst book I had to read this summer or last. To me it seemed that all the characters stayed the same except for perhaps Lovburg, whos change only occured before the play takes place.
I just think the play was about a spoiled control freak girl who needs to pretend she has any bit of control over the people around her any chance she can. And then, when she realizes that she really isn't in control of anything, she kills herself. But thats just my opinion.
I agree with whoever said this reminded them of The Awakening. Several times while reading this I was reminded of The Awakening, which is probably the only book ive ever read that I disliked more than this one.
I have to agree with Ed in the fact that this book really brought memories back from the dreaded "Awakening." This story took place in about the same time period as the Awakening, and the two books defiantly show the transformation women were facing in the late 1800's. Many women were starting to realize that they too had a place in society and were trying everything in their power to find it.
I have to agree with Anna that the only thing that kept me reading this book was Hedda and all the juvenile acts she committed. She was just such an unusual character that I believe realized in the end that she could never get what she really wanted in life.
This was my least favorite of the three stories. Mainly because I found myself very confused at times and a tad confused the entire play.
First reading the summary given to us I wasn't sure exactly what to think of the play or how it would play out (no pun intended), but I did have my ideas about Hedda. After getting only a few pages into the play (enough to gain a first opinion of Hedda), I had a completely different view of the story. At first (reading the summary) I thought that Hedda was going to be a depressed wife in a relationship that she didn't want at all. While it did seem (reading the beginning of play) that she did not particularly enjoy the relationship she had, she seem anything but depressed about it, not that she was happy, she just wasn’t depressed, or at least she didn’t show it. As the play progressed so did Hedda and my option of her. Towards the middle, around when Lovborg was brought into play I began to see Hedda in a different light; it was almost as if she was a new person, or as if a new author had taken over (that may be exaggerated, but I still feel as if there were significant and noticeable changes in her personality). She continued to change and I saw some more change as she would be left alone with different people. To me it seemed like she had a different personality for each of the different characters in the play with her.
The plot of the play was the most confusing part to me. I did not know what to think in the opening lines of the play as it seemed like I was starting from the middle of a scene. Reading farther into it, the beginning lines became clear, but I struggled to get started. There were times that I was unsure as to how situations arose from seemingly out of no-where. I plan to read some notes about this play and try and get a better understanding as to just what was going on.
Overall, not the best play I have read, and not the best one this summer, but one that is challenging me.
This was a rather interesting book, not going to say it was my favorite cause it wasn't, but it wasn't too bad either.
Reading through all classmates' blogs, i agree when they say that the play was confusing. Although, Hedda is a very deep, interesting character as well as really weird. she was a very cold-hearted woman a very unhappy woman. Her committing suicide proved to me how unhappy she was with her life and with her loving husband who she just could not love back. Mainly, she needed control in her life and she was just losing all control she had.
In response to the question of whether or not her name should have been Tesman, as said before the obvious answer is no because of how unhappy she was being Hedda Tesman.
wooo 2 days until school!
To answer the question, "Should the play be called Hedda Tesman?"...NO. She was very unhappy with her life married to Tesman. Their bond was very weak and she had no attatchment to him, or the life they shared together. She was always trying to make it better.
And I also agree with most, Hedda was indeed pregnant.
I agree that Hedda was pregnant. There were too many hints dropped in that made me believe that she was pregnant. I also noticed the way that she became very defensive whenever these hints were dropped and how she quickly tried to change the subject.
After reading through the comments and reading through the play a second time (skimming at least), I stay with my first statement that I did not like the play, but...I have come around a bit, to a point where I may actually say I like it a bit. Not that it can hold a candle (vocab word) to the other two (exaggeration just to get the vocab word in there). I think the more I read the comments and the play over again and think about it and what the author is trying to do, I begin to appreciate the play some more. I don’t know how everyone else feels about that idea... please do share.
There were some points that I completely missed the first time around, like what exactly that Lovberg and Dr. Tesman were going to be competing over, and even now it is not completely clear, but i did catch that it was a job. While I did catch it the second time around I would also like to thank Sima in helping me see and understand that. The hints that were dropped about Hedda being pregnant, while I caught some the first time through, I caught even more the next time through, but am certain I have still missed some.
All these little details, while they may not seem like much, and may seem insignificant to some, to me they are needed. When I am reading if I get confused over even the tiniest thing I attempt to try and figure it out. I did spend around 10 minutes reading a single page or two in this book trying to figure out exactly what was going on. So those little details do add up and now with the new knowledge I gained going through it a second time, I am certain that if I go through it a third, as possibly a refresher for English, as I have it second semester. I am certain I will understand it even more and appreciate it that much more too.
This is not the only book that the comments and a quick skim over some section, if not a good majority of the book have greatly increased my understanding and appreciation of the book. I actually found myself re-reading quite a lot in In the Time of the Butterflies.
This was a very interesting book. I enjoyed it, however, it was not my favorite. It was slow in the beginning, but the ending was exciting. Hedda was certainly an interesting character who would do anything to control the people around her. I thought it was smart how she manipulated Loveberg at the end to keep him from his manuscript. At first, her suicide was surprising, however, once I considered everything she had previously done, it seemed fitting.
I agree with most in the response to Hedda's last name. It never seemed she was connected to Tesman, or even liked him, so I felt her name should remain Gabler.
I also agree with many that the characters did not change, however, the play was not very long and I did not mind. Overall, I enjoyed this play, mainly because of Hedda.
This was definitely not my favorite book, but it was also not the worst. I really enjoyed the story mainly because of Hedda. She was certainly the most interesting character in the book.
I agree with most that Hedda was never really attached to Tesman. She was more interested in making her own life better. She proved this by destroying Lovborg's manuscript and (inderictly) giving him the tools and ideas of suicide because he could be a threat to Tesman's future career. She feared that if Lovborg went ahead and left Tesman behind, their already tight financial problem would get worse, and her life would become restricted; she would not be able to enjoy her sophisticated life that she is used to.
I was not very shocked by her suicide because the fact that Judge Brack knew that she had given the gun to Lovborg, would be like a bond. Instead of her dream to influence the lives of other important men, her own life would be at the mercy of the Judge.
Overall, it was a good book. Tesman was a pretty dull character, but Hedda was just the opposite.
This book, although not my favorite, was still a rather good story. It shed light onto the topic of the many hardships that a woman must endure when she enters a marriage. I must disagree with sebatian's statement about hedda being a cold hearted witch. SHe may have come across as fairly snooty and uptight at times, but i feel those "moods" were an effect of her individuality feeling threatened. I disagree with the idea that this book should be called hedda tesman rather than hedda gabler. Throughout the story hedda remains true to herself, and thus true to the name of hedda gabler
I read this book first and I thought that I had really liked it. Turns out I really didn't. It was a little bit hard to get started but then I got easier. As some people said before that the characters were defined in the beginning pages ruined a little, however the play was short anyway so I don't feel like it ruined the story much. This was also an easy read to me, but unlike A Moon for the Misbegotten, this play dragged on and bored me quite a bit. By the end the plot caught me off guard and i became more interested. This was probably my least favorite of all three even though I thought it was still good.
I think that this book should still be called Hedda Gabler because as people have said before she never even loved Mr. Tesman. For that fact using her last name would be more appropriate.
I did not like this book at all. I'm sorry to say, but there was nothing about this book that I really enjoyed. To be honest, I think Hedda just annoyed me way too much. The beginning was really hard to get into because I did not understand what was going on but I managed. At first, I felt bad for Hedda, she was so unhappy and it was quite saddening. But as I read more, I realized that she wasn't someone I would pity at all. I would feel bad if she was just so unhappy and no matter what she tried to do, nothing worked. But it seemed that she was just down right mean and that she looked for the bad in others, to some how make herself feel better.
However, I did find the ending was quite interesting if nothing else. Jenn had said earlier that she thought Hedda's suicide was quite predictable, however it wasn't really to me. Maybe it's because I was confused through a lot it. But if anything, I really thought she would have shot someone else, until the end, where she some how saw Eilert’s ‘suicide’ to be exciting or beautiful. I feel like Hedda was just being dramatic by blaming herself for his death. I understand that his behavior was in fact because of her, but it just seems like she always had to find the worse in any situation. After that, I was not surprised at all that she killed herself, I just felt bad for the unborn baby she was carrying.
In response to the question of whether Hedda was pregnant or not, I think she was. In the beginning everytime Tesman would try to bring up how Hedda looked thicker from the trip, Hedda would say something like, that's enough about me. she would try to change the subject as quickly as she could, which leads me to believe that she was pregnant.
I finished Hedda Gabler first and right away I thought that it was going to be my least favorite. I did not like this book mainly because I thought that it was very boring. I thought this because it moved very slowly and it also had charcters that I could not even relate to. I also found it hard to follow because of the slow pace that it moved at. Due to the slow pace, I could nit get into this book and I never fully got it. I also did not like the character Hedda Gabler. I found her annoying (Even though Mr. Macarthur does not like that term). I thought that she depended on other people, was jealous, and could not do anything on her own. Even though I really disliked this book, I will admit that it was well written and it did a good job of portrating the characters of this time period. The ending was also pretty bad.
Although this book was the shortest, I think that it was the hardest to get through. It was a really fast read, but I had trouble understanding the deeper meaning and the purpose of this play. For example, I did not catch the fact that Hedda was pregnant even though I was looking for it after hearing everyone else mention it. I also did not understand why Hedda was trying to sabotage Mrs. Elvsted’s relationship with Ejlert Lovborg. Hedda was not a happy character, and it seemed like she was constantly trying to bring down everyone else’s happiness as well. She just married Mr. Tessman, but she still was not happy. She did not seem to truly love him, and whenever someone mentioned love; she denied caring for him like that. She thought Tessman was a learned person, and that was boring to her. I also did not understand why Hedda shot herself. She was not upset over Lovborg’s death because she initiated that by giving him the pistol. Some other reason possessed her to kill herself, but I am at a loss of what that could be.
The comments about Hedda's possible pregnancy are interesting. It's likely that she is pregant, I think, and that probably does contribute to her decision to kill herself. Whether or not she is pregnant, she kills herself because she doesn't have any other way to control her own life. She did this without regard to the pregnancy, I think.
My favorite comment after reading these and thinking about it I will have to say was Kayla Burson's. About how she did not catch the hints that Hedda was pregnant. Like I said in my post prior to this one I only caught some of them the first time, around 2 or so if I remember correctly, so I feel as if I was same boat as you for most of the play. Also about Hedda trying to sabotage the relationship between Lovberg and Mrs. Elvsted, while I didn't have any mention of in my posts, it was s question that I found myself asking while I was reading. She seemed to be friends with Mrs. Elvsted, and her actions towards Lovberg, in what information she shared about Mrs. Elvsted showed anything but friendship. This was my favorite post because it seemed to put a lot of the crucial information into one blog.
Thank you Kayla.
This play was... different. Hedda was certainly a unique character. I found this play to be not one of my favorites, but it was oddly interesting. Hedda and her cruel ways were strangely fascinating. I am still confused exactly as to what the motives for everyone's actions were, in a way. Lovborg was a little extreme in killing himself (as it seemed that it happened) over his manuscript being lost. I mean, I understand it meant a lot to him, but I don't think that it would be a driving reason to make someone kill himself. And I don't quite understand Hedda. She virtually tortured others for her own amusement. She gave Lovborg her gun to see "a beautiful act" be done. She married Tesman basically for her own benefit, not out of love. Hedda is oddly unique in her own cruel ways.
I dont' know if anyone found this yet but I found a quote by the author, Henrik Ibsen, online that says why he chose the title. It is basically the same as what other people are saying, that she didn't want to be thought of as her husbands wife.
"I intended to indicate thereby that as a personality she is to be regarded rather as her father's daughter than as her husband's wife."
He goes on to say that she wanted to live the life of a man. And that she couldn't be herself in the modern, male-run society. I thought that was interesting.
Hi.
I just felt like commenting today.
I just read through everyone's post and I want to say thank you for the many different viewpoints on the book.
Good luck in the class everyone.
<3
Ah, Hedda Gabler. It is hard for me to tell how I feel about this play; normally I do not like a plot in which the antagonistic (or at least unlikeable) characters prevail in the end, but this one is a little bit different; I can't exactly put my finger on it.
Well, what I can say about it is that I had no idea what to expect when I picked up the book. As I started to read it, I was kind of bored for a while. And although I thought, yeah, she's a little spoiled, I didn't really realize until later on what made Hedda such an unlikeable person. After the first bit of Act 1, I found myself becoming vaguely interested, and that interest gradually increased as the play progressed. There were times, believe it or not, that I didn't want to put it down, because I couldn't tell what was going to happen next. And on the other hand, there were a few instances when I knew exactly what was going to happen before it did... this was later on when I was really starting to dislike Hedda and it was easier to see her cruel intentions.
I don't exactly know what to make of Hedda. Yes, on the surface she is mean and coldhearted...actually maybe not even on the surface; she puts on an act of being a gracious hostess and happy newlywed, but underneath that is the mean coldheartedness. But even behind that, she has her "reasons" for being such a bitter person. One can sympathize with her... to an extent. But do any of her reasons really justify her methods of ruining the lives of everyone around her? I think some of her actions were simply inexcusable, such as when she destroyed Lovborg's manuscript. Everything that occured in that last scene was a snowball effect from the trouble she instigated. I thought it was sad that she encouraged Lovborg to kill himself... and he actually did. And I must say, that after everything had happened, Hedda's final act of suicide did shock me and catch me off guard. I would like to suggest that possibly Hedda was somewhat mentally unstable... insane even? I can't think of any other logical explanation as to her actions throughout the course of the play. One would have to have no conscience at all for some of the things she did.
However, I am not being completely narrow-minded here. I am capable of imagining myself in Hedda's situation and seeing the reasons and justifications she would have for doing what she did, and I suppose on some twisted level it makes sense. But from strictly an outsider's standpoint I don't agree with it.
While this play could by no means even be compared to A Moon for the Misbegotten, it is certainly a well-written piece. It is the intricately constructed, multi-dimensional personalities (especially Hedda's) that give the play its value. The play wasn't too bad, but I still say the other two books surpassed it by far.
Post a Comment