Talk:Henrik Ibsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Henrik Ibsen article.
Article policies
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).


Contents

[edit] comment

It looks as though the link to Brand has been broken some while back, possibly.

I edited the current link to Brand to at least include reference to Ibsen's play, but if there was existing text, then it should be put back in.

It is also possible that there wasn't a link, and the text on brand was put in afterwards, and this has resulted in inconsistent text.

I hope that this can be sorted during the next few days - perhaps more details of Ibsen's play can be given, and maybe a disambiguation page put in. User:David Martland

Kudos to everyone working on this article! Readable and entertaining. :-) dpol 03:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Victorian refers to English values, and Ibsen is Norwegian, not English. I have rewrote parts of the article. Mandel 16:39, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

"Victorian" can refer to some sort of generalized European 19th century values, I would submit. john k 17:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But on looking, I think your edit was good. john k 17:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Having just read the article for the first time, the talk about Victorian this and Victorian that about a Norwegian author did sound goofy.

The thing is that 'Victorian' refers to British Society. Norwegian society was in any case more oppresive and insular that Britain and this needs acknowledged in the article. Perhaps as a fott note or something. We use the term Victorian to discuss any morally oppresive society, it might need explained that Ibsen was talking abgout another society that can be compared to British Victorians. Unless stated what a term means within an article slippage and mis-meaning can and often does occur.

May I suggest a spoiler warning before the description of his plays? 62.107.61.32

At least some of the stuff about his early adult life seems to be different than the biography I am reading right now (Ibsen: The Man and His Work by Beyer). I don't have time to check what other biographies claim (and it is quite possible that the book is wrong). Just a friendly warning, I'll make corrections as needed when I have time. --ChrisBeer 21:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you name some examples (just from the top of your head) of what differs in facts between that biography and this article? I don't have any other biographies to check against except the ones available online and linked to in the external links section here, but I have time, so I can at least check the things you found different against those. Thanks. Shanes 21:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The article is way too biased in favor of Ibsen in his hatred of Victorian culture. I don't think it's appropriate for this article to take sides in a feud between Victorian culture and Ibsen. I take issue with the following:

". . . any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous". This is overly hostile. Every system of morality views opposing systems as immoral. This isn't some brutal crushing of dissent. It's just a disagreement with other moral systems.

"Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries." Again. This article should not be cheering Ibsen on in his crusade.

"Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality." Translation: he criticized. Victorian morality.

" . . . and shattered the illusions of his audiences." Go Ibsen! Shatter those foolish illusions!

Amulekii (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Overbroad claim?

This article makes some broad statements about drama: "Prior to him, plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces. Every drama was expected to result in a "proper" conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality only pain."

I don't mean to be overly critical--I'm new to Wikipedia and just signed on to address this -- but lots of theater was accomplished without the need for a "proper" conclusion shortly before Ibsen, including George Ethridge's "Man of Mode." Also, I don't like the scare-quotes around the word ("proper"), and think scare-quotes shouldn't be included in an encylclopedia entry. Better to simply hash out your distaste for that culture's values in a more overt way, and probably not in the article anyway.

Also, I object to the use of this cliche:

"Ibsen was to turn that concept on its head..."

Though of smaller consequence, I object to the use of the word "very" twice in the first two paragraphs, which exhibits a weakness in diction.

I wasn't sure whether to change the article, but the bottom of this page says that improving upon articles is encouraged, so I will change these issues. If that's improper, please let me know by e-mailing me.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pschelden (talk • contribs) 06:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC).

Thanks for your comments. I must say I agree with everything you say, and I'm happy to see you went ahead and made the changes to the article. It wasn't improper at all, it's how this encyclopedia gets better. Thanks again. Shanes 07:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Re: Overbroad

I took out a paragraph between the section on Ghosts and An Enemy of the People - "Societal criticism of Ibsen was raised to a fever pitch at this point, but social convention was losing its control over the mass of people, most of whom didn't live in the rarefied air of the Victorian Gentleman. The general public wanted to see Ibsen's plays because he showed what so many of them already knew to be the reality. The tide had turned."

I just feel that this is too broad, especially for having no references. Aso, as Pschelden said, generalized criticism of Victorian culture probably shouldn't be a part of an encyclopedia article. I leave to others the debate on whether the term "Victorian" applies to other countries besides Britain. Personally, as an American, I've seen "Victorian" applied to the U.S. in the late 19th century as well, though it may just be because we're English-speaking. --Puddingpie 02:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

I don't know if it should be added to the page itself, but Project Gutenberg just released Henrik Ibsen: A Bibliography of Criticism and Biography with an Index to Characters/--Prosfilaes 08:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


QUESTION REGARDING POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL CONTENT- OPINIONS WELCOMED!

Hi- Im just discovering Wiki for the first time tonight... found the presentation on "The Wild Duck" and thought I might offer something I wrote on it while studying it at university. But it is an essay I wrote- regarding Ibsen's detailed use of lighting in the script and how it interacts with the play's super-objective, as well as how it might be put to use by a director...not sure whether it realy has a place in Wiki? - Thoughts please. [also, apologies if I have not submitted this message properly- hope I havent messed the discussion board up somehow but all these instructions look like gobbledigook to me! lol]80.42.175.121 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Later plays

Added some material on Hedda Gabler and The Master Builder. Hard to believe the article offered no discussion of the second play at all, and hardly any discussion of the first. For me these are the best plays Ibsen wrote, mercifully free from lectures and driven by the most interesting of his heroines. Casey Abell 00:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm- thre seems to be little or no mentio of Ibsen in his later symbolist phase, it concentrates largely on his realism plays (or problem plays). I think it would be doing the man an injustice jsu to look at an small part of his work. Maybe i'll write something when I have the information to hand

[edit] An Enemy of the People

Perhaps the section on "An Enemy of the People" could make more of how, in part, this play is a very clever satire on democracy. Wikipedia has been criticised, but it seems to me that any one who is criticising the "open-edit" policy of Wikipedia is, by implication, also criticising parliamentary democracy. One might be concerned that any one could edit Wikipedia articles; but shouldn't one therefore be equally worried that people who vote in democratic elections might know about as much politics as the drunken man in "An Enemy of the People"? ACEO 18:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influence on Freud and Tillich

Ibsen's plays have had considerable psychological impact, as the writings of Sigmund Freud reveal. They were also of interest to the theologian Paul Tillich. So, should we have a section on the influence of Ibsen beyond drama and literature? ACEO 18:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian

I find it a bit strange that it is "despite his exile" that Ibsen is held high in Norway. I don't think Dalai Lama isn't held high by his fellow Tibetans even though he too is exiled. And even I may be "disenchanted" with the cold winter nights here in Norway, but that doesn't make me less Norwegian. Any thoughts? --Kebman 23:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In particular, his exile was self-imposed. Morever, it doesn't change the fact that he is Norwegian. I think we could drop the qualifying clause and simply state that he is a national hero to the Norwegians AND a world-renowned playwright. --GentlemanGhost 23:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The term exile might be out of place here as it more often nowadays implies some form of force. Either that the person is expelled from the country or that he has to leave for fear of life or freedom. But Ibsen left Norway because he felt unwelcome amongst the cultural and social elite of Christiania at that time and because he could come in contact with the impulses of Europe. He later returned as well.Inge 12:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Henrik Ibsen

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible spoilers

I just want to point out that the descriptions of the plays contain a lot of spoilers. Perhaps a spoler warning should be incorporated in order to prevent spoiling the plays for people who haven't read/seen them.

[edit] Nora's "routine feminism"

I find the sentence objectionable. Nora is above all an individual fighting for her own autonomy, freedom and love, against social conventions. Calling this "feminism" is correct in a way, but it is also too narrow and thus misleading. It is no conventional sermon preaching feminism, any more than "Hamlet" is a conventional sermon preaching against usurpation of the throne. Generally, modern analyses deal with much more than the strictly feminist implications of the work. And I certainly don't agree with suggestions that such a thing can be "routine" and "dated", or that Hedda's hysterical, vain destructivity is in any way more "interesting" than Nora's striving. I know the opinion exists, but it shouldn't be stated as a fact. --194.145.161.227 00:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dating of plays

I noticed that the dates for Ibsen's plays on this page are slightly different than the ones on the Norwegian wikipedia. I checked what Project Gutenberg said about the most obvious one (Fru Inger til Østeraad), and the two available texts dates it differently as well. Not sure what to do about this - are there any experts that can take a look? Sverre 10:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

Following on from the 'possible spoilers' section above, would it be better to strip out the contents of the plays from the 'life and writings' section, giving only a broad description of the themes, and have sections below for each of the plays? This would allow the use of 'spoiler warnings' and 'see main article' tags in a way that can't really be done with the current structure. Just a thought. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intro

I find it odd that the intro, when speaking of his moral themes, neglects that several of his plays depicted women in an uncharacteristically (for the period) positive light; as intellectual equals with men. The theme of women's rights and independence is a major one in many academic considerations of Ibsen. VanTucky (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norma

Norma, or A Politician's Love, needs to be added to Ibsen's list of works. It was one of Ibsen's first plays, written in 1851. It was a parody of Vincenzo Bellini's Norma. It is one of Ibsen's less well-known plays, but it is significant enough for an article, and definitely significant enough to be listed with the rest of his plays.

Neelix 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Norma is not a play. It was published anonymously and is a satire of a libretto in verse. It is not included in any of the lists of his plays that I've encountered, nor is it mentioned in anything more than the very briefest in passing comment in the critical literature. What makes you say it could support an article? I think it would be misleading to insert it into a list of his plays. DionysosProteus 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a Norma article on Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia, as you can see by following this link: [1]. It is a play; it is a dramatic parody. Of all Ibsen's plays, Norma had the most recent first performance. There are also significant connections with The League of Youth in the play. In my studies of Henrik Ibsen, I have found Norma listed and described among his other works from several sources. If we are to provide a list of Ibsen's works on this page, we need to at least acknowledge that he wrote Norma.
Neelix 02:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a play, it's a parody of a libretto in verse. That is why it wasn't "produced" until 1994. It was published, not produced. Anonymously. And which academic works discuss it in any detail? DionysosProteus 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
For an academic publication discussing Norma in detail, see:
Meyer, Michael. Ibsen on File. London: Methuen London Ltd, 1985.
For articles about Norma online, see Ibsen.net.
I don't know why Norma could not be considered a play. Many plays are parodies of other plays. Wiktionary defines libretto as "The text of a dramatic musical work", and play as "A theatrical performance featuring actors". This would seem to indicate that a libretto is simply the written form of one type of play. It has been performed, as you can read on Ibsen.net. To write a truthful and complete account of Ibsen's works, Norma should be included.
Neelix 13:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Does Meyer call it a play? I think I have the ON FIle kicking around somewhere, but i might have to search. But that is not a detailed discussion - it's a list, if I remember rightly (the book is very slight). That it's written in verse in dramatic form doesn't make it a play. It's not a parody of a play but of a libretto. That is not a type of play. Many pieces that are not plays are performed at some point - that doesn't make them plays. There is a reason it wasn't done until 1994! Norma may be a "work" but it doesn't belong in a list of his plays. It is by definition extremely marginal; it is clear that Ibsen himself did not consider it to be part of his dramatic development. DionysosProteus 14:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
My vote is that Norma is at least significant enough to mention on this article, as 1) it is the only of Ibsen's works not currently mentioned somewhere in this article, and 2) Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia's article about Henrik Ibsen, which is a featured article there, includes Norma as one of Ibsen's works, going so far as to have a separate article devoted to the subject. Whether or not it may be considered a play is irrelevant.
Neelix 17:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consitency

Reading through the article, it is notable that the author(s) regularly slip between the spellings of Christiania. In the earlier parts of the article it is referred to as Christiania, and later as Kristiania? Can someone correct this please; I cannot as I do not know which spelling is more correct as it were. Cheers 220.238.156.98 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)