This week's lessons can be found on these blog posts:
For B Block - ELA Lessons for 3/23 - 3/30
For C Block - ELA Lessons for 3/23 - 3/30
Today's Lesson: Book Club for An Enemy of the People by Henrik Ibsen , Act I. Feel free to comment on the first act in this space. Speak freely with me and each other. Invite friends and family to join! Below, you will find the full text, audiobook, and a performance. Let me know how I can help.
Audiobook
Performance Adapted and Directed by Adria C. Le Boeuf for The Catalyst Theatre Company
One thing that really stood out to me about this play is the number of characters it has. Typically, Ibsen's pieces follow a similar pattern in which there are only two people talking in each scene and eventually someone leaves and another person enters, which guides the audience into the next scene. This play differs from Ibsen's previous two plays because there are more than just two characters talking in a given scene. At one point, in Act I Mrs. Stockmann, Petra, Ejlif, Morten, Billing, Hovstad, and Horster were each talking during one particular scene, in one discussion. Despite evolving to have more people in the conversations, Ibsen maintains his style by constantly having people entering and leaving the rooms.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that really stuck out to me from Act I was the reference to sailors. This reference immediately reminded me of "Ghosts" and the sailor's club Engstrand wanted to open up. This reference directly demonstrated the idea of ghosts and the thought that everything happens as a result of the past.
Great insights, Nicole! There were so many issues to cover in this play, and you noticed that he moved away from his usual form. There are five acts instead of his usual three, too. What is similar is that each character will hold a symbolic function. Dr. Stockmann is Ibsen. Those on his side at the beginning of the play represent those who stood by him after "A Doll House" was banned. Watch what happens to his allies as the play progresses. On Friday, I will provide another "Poem of the Day" followed by an analysis of the first act. Add any questions you have for me. Where is everyone else? ;)
DeleteIt has been interesting to see Ibsen break his normal patterns. When I first started reading the play I was surprised to see that there wasn’t a central female figure like Nora in A Doll’s House and Mrs. Alving in Ghosts. We haven’t heard much from Mrs. Stockmann so far. She seems to take more of a submissive role in her home than the other women. Dr. Stockmann orders her around a lot but we have not gotten to see much about her personality.
ReplyDeleteI think that we will probably see a conflict between Dr. Stockmann and his brother over the information that Dr. Stockmann found on the Baths. It seems like Peter Stockmann will probably not want to release the information seeing as how it is so important to the town and its people and he is the mayor. I am interested to see how this moral issue unfolds and see how each of the characters side.
Heyyyyyy Graceeeeee <3
ReplyDeleteNot wanting to repeat the above two comments, I can also say that I saw the major technical differences in this play rather than the others we have read (more acts, not one central female character, many more characters). I think this is a testament to it being later in Ibsen's career and him attempting maybe to branch out and make a point. Anyways, the character of Dr. Stockmann was suspicious to me. It seems like we do not know his full character from this first act. His brother is very competitive with him, he is almost bragging about all the nice things he owns, and he comes in as a hero by declaring the water is polluted. It just makes one wonder why he mentions how he cannot be called crazy this time. Why has he been called crazy before? Why haven't people believed him? Maybe it's just because he is a doctor and more educated than the people in the town, but I'm not sure... Also, the mother and daughter, the two female characters thus far, seem to be in side-character roles now. Knowing Ibsen's writing style and literary goals, I assume they will be gaining a bigger role as the play goes on.
ReplyDeleteThe first act is mainly concerned with providing background information for the readers. Although we can’t define the characters’ personalities yet, we may see that Dr. Stockmann is almost like the opposite of his brother the Burgomaster. Dr. Stockmann is on the verge of poverty and is a righteous man of modern and liberal views. The Burgomaster, on the other hand, is enjoying a nice and affluent life being the head of the bath committee, stealing Dr. Stockmann’s idea. He mainly adheres to old and traditional views.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to his scientific and liberal views, Dr. Stockmann’s naive mind also seeps through the lines. He blindly believes that the community will be proud of him for discovering that the baths are poisonous. Without thinking of the possible consequences, he decides to publish his article about the poisonous bath in the newspaper. The public bath, however, is the center of income for many in the town and it acts as an economic stimulator. He fails to realize the extra expense and inconvenience that he may cause for the public and the devastation of the town due to the shut down of baths. Instead, when ACT I ends, Dr. Stockmann celebrates his “heroic” discovery thinking he is going to be honored by serving his town and fellow citizens.
At the same one, one may argue that Dr. Stockmann is wry. As he eagerly publishes his discoveries, there seems to be some ambiguity in his motivations. Dr. Stockmann is angry at the Burgomaster for stealing his ideas and refusing to lay the pipes where Dr. Stockmann wanted them. When he found that the baths are poisonous due to the position of the pipes, he might be proving the Burgomaster wrong for his personal revenge. In fact, it is reasonable to derive that his happiness is based on proving the Burgomaster wrong regarding the specification of the bath.
After reading two plays by Henrik Ibsen, I have detected a few patterns his storylines and literary devices that he implements heavily. From the first Act, I can tell that Dr. Stockmann has found crucial information about the bathhouses that the mayor, Peter Stockmann, wishes to implement municipal baths in the community. He says, showing a letter, “Here it is! It proves the presence of decomposing organic matter in the water—it is full of infusoria. The water is absolutely dangerous to use, either internally or externally.” He has Found definite proof that the baths are a harm to people’s safety and wishes to alert people immediately. He is portrayed as smart and considerate; he cares more about society than aiding a cash grabber.
ReplyDelete“Mrs. Stockmann. But why have you kept this all so secret, dear?
Dr. Stockmann. Do you suppose I was going to run about the town gossiping about it, before I had absolute proof? No, thank you. I am not such a fool.”
This is especially apparent from his conversation with his wife where he wants to refrain from spreading mere rumors about the baths. From how Ibsen’s plays usually go, his context clues, and his technique of employing foreshadowing, I do not think that the doctor will succeed in his attempts. From his previous conversation with a magazine editor, Hovstad, the mayor’s reaction to the media can be gauged:
“Hovstad. The mayor wasn't in a very sweet temper tonight, then.
Dr. Stockmann. It is his stomach; he has wretched digestion.
Hovstad. I rather think it was us two of the "People's Messenger" that he couldn't digest.”
Peter Stockmann has something to hide, and would probably save the Baths, his cash cow, at all costs despite the attempts of his brother, Dr. Stockmann.
Henrik Ibsen definitely tried to portray himself as Dr. Stockmann in this first act of “An Enemy of the People.” There are several hints that foreshadow a uproarious future, especially when Dr. Stockmann tells his brother and town mayor Peter that young people”’are the people who are going to stir up the fermenting forces of the future’” (Ibsen). Ibsen’s previous plays had dealt with the position of women and marriage in traditional society, and how enough is enough at a certain point. The conservative order that ruled over Europe at the time would fall to new ideas, no opinions about ghosts and old hierarchy. In addition, Hovstad warns Billing and Horster that “‘it is astonishing how little most sailors care about what goes on on shore’” (Ibsen). Hovstad’s thought is related to the indifference to governments and elites to common concerns, and how those who move nations forward still can’t escape their bubble. Such an idea would come into play with the town leadership, particularly the mayor, who doesn’t seem like a fan of the opinion column in the “People’s Messenger,” will be unconcerned with the finding of Dr. Stockmann. In Ibsen’s world, governments worked to shut down his messages, playing the role of Peter. One of the strongest references to Ibsen’s own life is Dr. Stockmann’s comment “‘it is a splendid time to live in! It is as if a whole new world were being created around one’” (Ibsen). Ibsen is not one for veiled metaphors, and the societal craze caused by Ibsen’s works could have gotten to his head. The cautiousness of the doctor’s work, his methodical process, is also an aspect of Ibsen’s life. There is no benefit for him to reveal what he finds to be wrong with society prematurely, for public backlash would have to be curbed with detailed knowledge, observations of poisoned water or the failure of traditionalist ideas alike. Opinions are certain to run rampant, and without a suitable knowledge source “’men can go about forming our judgments, when in reality we are as blind as any moles—‘” (Ibsen). Anybody that went to go see Ibsen’s plays had a preexisting bias, without realizing that they depended on ghosts to win an argument, ignoring everyone that was really going on.
ReplyDeleteDr. Stockmann is the very embodiment of good, and it’s egotistical for Ibsen to create an inflated character that parallels himself. However, Dr. Stockmann’s intentions are noble, like those of Ibsen. At the end of Act I, a jubilant Dr. Stockmann announces that “’it is a splendid thing for a man to be able to feel that he has done a service to his native town and to his fellow-citizens’” (Ibsen). Although this remark verges on conceitedness, his intentions are tue, especially since he will refuse a pay increase. There is no material benefit to the doctor, who would actually be better off if the town baths continued to be in operation. The wealth that these bathes brought every citizen is apparent in the first part of Act I, and this abundance of riches and prosperity will not quell feeling that perhaps the doctor is lying, and cause a reluctance to abandon this lucrative industry.
I think that if I were Ibsen, I would’ve stopped writing plays after all the uproar caused by “A Doll House.” Actually, I would’ve been too scared to even publish it. For this reason, I have wondered why Ibsen would write two reactionary plays even though it seemed like the entire world hated him. And now I think the reason he went on to write “Ghosts” and “An Enemy of the People” is because he felt very strongly that he needed to open the eyes of a blinded society. He could’ve let these issues slide by, but he decided to confront them because he hoped to make a positive change. In a sense, his ideas weren’t new; he was just the only one brave enough to speak publicly against the “ghosts” that have been haunting people for their entire lives. I see Ibsen being most similar to Dr. Stockmann in that they care more about others than their own material gain. Ibsen must have been well aware that he would not receive praise or large amounts of money by writing this trilogy, yet he did it for the sake of others. Dr. Stockmann also denied a pay raise because he sees protecting the townspeople as “nothing more than [his] duty.”
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting how timely this play is. Just like how the poisoned water is going to affect everyone’s daily lives, their health, and the economy, the coronavirus is also having the same effects. And Mr. Pellerin, you said in your analysis video that in the play, when people find out about the poisoned water, their first reaction is going to be denial, which is exactly what happened here. When I first heard of the coronavirus, I had no idea it would turn the world upside down. I think that even if someone told me exactly what was going to happen, I would not really believe them. I was in denial that the virus was as bad as it really is, and that this was going to be our new normal for the next few months. There is no easy answer for the coronavirus, and there is no easy answer for the poisoned water in the play, so I am interested in seeing how Dr. Stockmann’s and the public’s reaction to their issue compares to today.
I really like the play so far––even though I’ve only read Act 1 it seems like such an interesting plot! What caught my eye most was the difference between Dr. Stockmann and his brother. Dr. Stockmann had lived in poverty with Katherine, both of them working their way up the social ladder of their little town by working hard for their money. Peter Stockmann holds many respectable titles in the town. He is the mayor, the constable, and the chairman of the bath’s committee. While we’re unsure of how he came to gain each of these, they’re considerably prestigious for a town like theirs. These experiences have drastically shaped the way they view the world. Peter Stockmann, from the beginning of the play, seems to have some sort of discontent with his brother, making snide comments to his brother’s wife. One such example was when Mrs. Stockmann called herself and Thomas spendthrifts, to which Peter says, “‘Not you, my dear; I would never think that of you’” implying that he would instead consider it true for his brother. He also considers his brother to be a liar, and becomes upset that later on in the act his brother won’t reveal to him the reason for holding off the article. He represents the upper class––a snooty, privileged, whiney version of it. Thomas, on the other hand, is from the middle class. His house is modestly furnished, and he takes pride in what he’s done to accomplish success. Here is where the two brothers clash most. Peter is a lot more conservative. He uses “invalids” to promote the baths and doesn’t understand life in the same way as Thomas. His brother is someone who believes ideas should be shared and experienced, that “‘there are innumerable things to work for and fight for; and that is the main thing’”, and that value comes from the work put into something and understanding that result. He even has a considerably politically left view of the future, believing that young people “‘are the people who are going to stir up the fermenting forces of the future’”. Peter is afraid of such a future. As an older man himself, older than Thomas, the future for him would be closer to destitution than anything. He will be overtaken by those younger than him (maybe even Thomas, which would explain why by the end of the play everyone has turned against him). It’s turned him into someone terrifying. His last words of the act are, “‘mark my words, some day you will have to suffer for it [refusing to cohere to the community]—sooner or later. Now I have told you’”. It sets up the rest of the play for quite a struggle between the young and the old.
ReplyDeleteI’m not quite sure what is going on in this play so far but I would like to call attention to the ways certain characters think, and how this lines up with their decision making in the first act. Dr. Stockmann, who I guess is sort of a representation of Ibsen’s own beliefs and character, is the most moral of the characters we have met so far, with his ultimate goal being to save his town from polluted/poisoned water that everyone is so delightfully bathing in. He doesn’t care about the economic repercussions that come with shutting down the baths because he knows that otherwise the people who require the baths will become ill and die. Stockmann’s politics remind me of my own, which are influenced mostly by social issues than by economic issues. I’m not super educated on the economy, so if someone were to ask me to vote based purely on economic issues I would be a bit lost. But if there’s a candidate who is advocating for minority rights and representation then heck yes I will vote for them. Stockmann probably has more knowledge than me about the economy, but he chooses to do things for the good of the majority, not the select few who are going to be heavily impacted by the shutting down of the baths. His brother, Peter, is sort of the opposite. He seems like a conservative in nature considering his reaction to Dr. Stockmann’s alleged article about the poisoned water. Peter holds a lot more power than Dr. Stockmann due to his position as mayor, so I can see things taking a turn for the worse once he finds out that Dr. Stockmann has exposed a flaw in his town’s system. I’m enjoying listening to each character in this play since they speak with slang we haven’t heard yet in any of the previous plays we’ve read so far in class. Every character has a unique quality or two about them that are either enjoyable to read about or make me suspicious of them. I’m excited to hear more about what they all have to say regarding the bath controversy.
ReplyDeleteTo me, by writing plays that are responses to the public opinion, Ibsen falls to the public’s level. I believe that it would have been infinitely more powerful if Ibsen refused to acknowledge the public uproar. For this reason, I think that Enemy of the People is an unnecessary third act in Ibsen’s rebellion against public opinion. I can understand the rationale behind Ghosts. After A Dollhouse was given an alternate ending, Ibsen needed to set the record straight. This is why he wrote Ghosts. However, there was no alternate ending to Ghosts. There was no real reason for Ibsen to write a third installment. By writing a third play he begins to appear like a victim of the public, not someone who fights conventional wisdom. The content of the play does not help this appearance. The symbolism in Enemy of the People is also much more obvious. It is as if Ibsen wants to be seen as the victim. Personally, I would disagree with this choice, as I think it weakens Ibsen’s message. It is for this reason that I believe Enemy of the People is an unnecessary installment to a series that would have been more meaningful without it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading act I of “An Enemy of The People” I can already tell that Dr. Stockmann is going to be the character that has a terrible and sad demise just as many other Ibsen characters do in other stories like Nora and Mrs. Alving. What’s interesting about this one is that instead of the main character being a woman, it seems to be a man. I know that we briefly mentioned this in class a few weeks ago and I think it’s because it’s sort of supposed to be about his own self and about everyone hating him (Ibsen) and not believing him when he is really the one who is right. In this case I think it is referring to the baths. It’s also an ongoing trend of how gullible Ibsen’s characters seem to be. When Dr. Stockmann finds out that the water is polluted. He thinks that everyone will just take his advice and I really hope that he will not be as passive as Nora was at the beginning of “A Doll House '' and will take action faster. Honestly i just had to add in this ending quote from the act, “Billing: Upon my soul, Doctor, you are going to be the foremost man in the town!”. It just sounded so weird and off. Knowing the background of this story and how nearly all of Ibsen’s play’s end up this remark was almost funny and satirical about how Billing was saying that he was going to be that best most loved guy in town because we all know it’s going to end up being to be the exact opposite of that.
ReplyDelete