A Doll House And The Story Of An Hour

When we think of a love we think of Majnun, whose heart walked oftentimes of Layla, “I pass by these walls, the walls of Layla. And I kiss this wall and that wall. It’s not Love of the houses that has taken my heart. But of the One who dwells in those houses, (Ganjavi). When we think of marriage, we think of what could have been of Laila and Majnun. Love was a bitter strife, the enemy, it casted them further apart. But instead of love, being the forefront of disaster, the worst of enemy, it is rather society. Society that dictates, who should love and how to love, if love ever existed, how should we know? Love was strayed and sent adrift by the bitter sensitivity of past society. A renounce society most responsible is the Victorian society, an era where the tragedies of women were displayed brightly, and marriage dirtied as it became the right hand for male dominance and female seclusion. In “A Doll House,” by Henrik Ibsen and, “The Story of an Hour,” by Kate Chopin, unity was acquitted in marriage. The mere thought that union was positioned in these marriages is an illusion and in this patriarch society, marriage- the holy sanction of lovers is effected, in such a way it becomes a branch of conformism.

It ploys the apparent cruelties and crippling wrongs of male dominance, highlighting society’s crude involvement and great impression, effecting even the strongest of marriages, (Shanley 85).At the beginning of Ibsen’s play we are under the assumption that, Nora and her husband, Torvald Helmer are the beacon of bliss and at ease, but as the walls start to crumble, secrets are let out and it begins to test the already faltering marriage of this unorthodox society. And over the course of the play, the inequity becomes nearly blinding. Marriage is to prevail, but to never be perfect, a unity, gone, lost and nowhere to be seen. (Coontz