Eric Bentley’s Criticism of Krogstad’s Character in a Doll’s House

When Eric Bentley wrote in Ibsen, Pro and Con that Krogstad was a mere imbue of the plot. adding that When convenient to Ibsen, he is a blackmailer. When inconvenient, he is converted, I believe he had entirely missed the point of his character in A razzing House. Krogstads portrait is a flagship example of the way Henrik Ibsen wrote all the characters in the play representations of mans professedly multifaceted nature.On the scrape up the reader makes quick judgement about the content of the roles characters Nora, ditzy Torvald, loving Linde, authentic and Krogstad, evil. It is not merely a convenience to the plot when Krogstads true nature is revealed, but the first obvious example of Ibsens need to show the reader that not everyone is just now a one overlying individual, and not everyone is just as they seem. When the reader realizes that the source of Krogstads misdeeds lies in result of his troubled past and love for Mrs. Linde in Act 3 when he says, When I lost you, it was as if all the solid desktop kage, readers no longer view him as the villain they saw before.By the end of the novel Nora believes that first and foremost she is an individual, just as Torvald is and stands all rather than beneath Torvalds thumb. Torvald, himself, is no longer the perfect husband and morally upright, but more like Noras original characterization with a desperation for a perfect doll house. Mrs. Linde who seemed independent and considerablyoff living for herself at the beginning of play reveals her want to be a mother and care for others again by the end. went from under my feet. watch at me nowI am a shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreck. Ibsens Krogstad is no more a flip founder of characterization than any other character in the play, but this tear is not just a simple plot device. The revelation of the changes in all the roles are not actually changes at all, they are simply the reveal of the multiple layers to each of them.