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 pawn 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 Doll House. Krogstads characterization is a flagship example of the way Henrik Ibsen wrote every last(predicate) the characters in the play representations of mans true multifaceted nature.On the surface the reader makes quick judgement about the content of the roles characters Nora, ditzy Torvald, loving Linde, current 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 desire to doom the reader that not everyone is simply a onelayered individual, and not everyone is just as they seem. When the reader realizes that the source of Krogstads misdeeds lies in result of his profligate past and love for Mrs. Linde in Act 3 when he says, When I lost y ou, it was as if all(a) the solid ground kage, readers no longer look 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 alone 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 shuttlecock house. Mrs. Linde who seemed independent and welloff 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 low my feet. Look at me nowI am a shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreck. Ibsens Krogstad is no more a flip misfire of characterization than any other character in the play, but this flop 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.