This is an astounding book really outlining Fabian Socialiam as seen in the plays of Henrik Ibsen. It has profound implications even today. It is a very interesting, enlightening, and literate book. One of Shaw's best works.

So much in reading Ibsen depends upon the translation of these great works. These four plays of Ibsen's so-called "realistic period" revolve around social issues of his day which plague us 100 years later. Do we ever learn from such literary wake-up calls? Although the dramatic tensions here, which could have easily have been 20th Century tensions, rumble through these plays, the translations here are wordy and dated, thus making the plays sound overly melodramatic and at times downright silly. Still, everyone should read -- and discuss -- Ibsen's plays for their uneasy questions regarding universal social problems: money, privacy, freedom to act, government corruption, unchecked journalism, and the moral and physical diseases which only seem to wear a new face each year.

Henrik Ibsen's creation of "modern theater" makes him one of the most influential playwrights, along with William Shakespeare and Samuel Beckett, in the history of drama. This unique collection of the four plays he wrote between 1879 and 1884 provides teachers of drama/literature with an opportunity to look at a major writer trying to develop his craft. Ibsen is concerned with social criticism and each of these plays reflects his change in perspective as he tries to write a drama that will be both socially relevant and commercially successful. You have to remember the time and place that considered it shocking for Nora to leave her husband or for Mrs. Alving to consider euthenasia for her son. By turning to "comedy" (of a sort) in "An Enemy of the People," Ibsen found a way of making his point in a manner more acceptable to his audiences. By looking at not only the plays but how each was received by the public, teachers/students can better appreciate what Ibsen was trying to do with each successive play.

For all four of these plays the notion of responsibility is primary. In "A Doll's House" Nora Helmer decides to leave her husband because he is unworthy of her love. In "Ghosts," Mrs. Alving has to decide whether she should give her diseased son poison as a mercy killing. In "An Enemy of the People," Dr. Stockmann decides to stay and fight to have the infected baths repaired even after the town ostracizes him. Finally, in "The Wild Duck" the idealist Gregers Werle comes home and destroys a family by insisting the truth be told. A classroom set of this particular volume is relatively inexpensive and provides an excellent case study of the growth of a major writer. Students do not often get the opportunity to read several works by the same writer. Shakespeare is the exception to this rule, but usually students are exposed to different types of plays (comedy, tragedy, history) rather than to a series of consecutively written plays.

henrik ibsen has perfected the realist movement in theatre. he has accomplished what so few have: to maintain the realistic effect, without succumbing to the tediousness of every day life. his plays ring true for the common man, yet not in a pedestrian manner that becomes boring. in my opinion, he far surpasses any other playwright in the realist movement, including chekhov.

This is definitely a theater must. Stella Adler, probably one of the best American acting teachers talking about three of the greatest playwrights (Ibsen, Strindberg, and Chekhov) ever. It is hard where to categorize this book for it points out ways (or I should say one way for Chekhov) to approach the plays of these Playwrights to the Actor but it is also very academic and analytic of the plays at the same time. Most of the entries, broadly discuss the play going from the actor's point of view to the directors to historical facts to the author's life etc. It is very insightful and inspring but There is only one problem I have with this book is her aggressive assumption that the only approach to Chekhov can be through Stanlisvaski's method and any other way is wrong. Now I agree that Stanislavski goes hand in hand with the Realism period but as Chekhov himself said "I wrote vaudevilles and Stanlisvaski has staged them as sentimental dramas". What is my point? That in theatre you cannot approach everything from one school of thought. We in the Theatre fight too much about Technique instead of moving audiences and transforming them. Still though, this book is worth reading and has great insights on these three playwrights.

Whether you are an actor, director, or just someone interested, these lectures of Stella's make you feel as though you are in the room with her, gaining the benefit of her years of experience in the theater. Given her father's noteworthy accomplishments in the Yiddish theater coupled with her own experience, especially that in the Group Theater, she has a unique background and a wealth of understanding that fuels her ability to convey the essence of these three playwrights and their works.

Her goal is to get the actor (or director, for that matter) to understand the heart and soul of a play and any of the roles (characters) within. Not until one really understands what's hidden between the lines, can one even think of approaching a role. Stella offers her humanity by sharing her perspectives on life and society and how they might relate to understanding a role. In the case of any playwright, she points out through wonderful examples that one must not only seek to understand the playwright, but also the time in which he or she lived. It is essentially a book sending that critical message that it's not about the lines but the life given to the role by the actor's understanding of the life of the character, which comes by seriously seeking to understand the material, its creator, the time period it takes place, etc. She reveals her life in the lectures in a way that provides a wonderful example as to how one might want to hone one's ability to find the deeper meaning hidden between the lines.

It's a great read with a lot of soul: Stella lives!!! ... and you can sit there with her while she shares her life. What a great thing!

Possibly helpful suggestion: If you aren't familiar with Ibsen, Strindberg, or Chekhov, a great way to dive in (and the approach I took) is to pick up this book along with the plays she references within. Read each play before she discusses it in the book. Or, read all of the plays for a given playwright, then approach that section of the book. This way the play is somewhat fresh in your mind. If you aren't familiar with any of the plays I'd imagine that it might be overwhelming to read all of the plays at once followed by the book.

This book is a must for serious actors who wish to further their understanding of the great writers for the stage. Before reading this book, I was, as an actor, very intimidated by the works of all three writers, but now feel like I can approach their plays with some degree of clarity and purpose. Adler writes from the point of view of performer, literary analyst, and teacher, a combination that serves to leave the reader inspired to tackle these three catalysts of the theatre.

Hedda gabler is a tale of a woman in the victorian ages. She was recently married to a man who considered writing a book "The Brabant in the middle ages" an exiting topic. She is torn between the role she must portray and the role she wants. The play shows the fall from grace and the decline of Hedda Gablers power. It is a powerful play and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Anyone who read the play and wants to help me with a staging essay. amieDicaprio@yahoo.com

Ibsen is one of the most important playwrights to ever grace this earth, and it is not difficult to see why after reading this collection of plays. "The Doll House" is immediately fascinating, perhaps the easiest to understand out of this group of plays. It teaches the lesson that one must learn to stand on one's own, to carry out the cliché -- "to find oneself" -- but the lesson is not learned by the main character until the stage has been skillfully set in order to make the ending all the more compelling. The strongest play is perhaps "Hedda Gabler," whose upper class heroine, Hedda, is one of the most abstract and intriguing female characters ever written for a play. Devious and suffocating in her new middle class surroundings after marrying a rather dull man, her frustrations play out and alienate the other characters. The other characters are not merely accessories; they ARE the play when one juxtaposes them with Hedda. "The Wild Duck" is not as strong a play, and the dullest of the group, but is also worth a read. Overall, the collection is a quick and engrossing read.

"An Enemy of the People," by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, has been published as part of the Dover Thrift Edition series (that's the version I read for purposes of this review). The Dover edition is a republication of an anonymous translation. The back cover data notes that the play was first staged in 1883.

"Enemy" tells the story of Dr. Thomas Stockmann, a medical officer for his town's public baths. When he discovers that the baths are contaminated and pose a health hazard, he is led into conflict with his brother Peter, who is the town's mayor. The tension increases as the drama moves towards its conclusion.

"Enemy" is an intriguing piece of literature. While reading it I was struck by how similar the story is to that of the classic film "Jaws": in both stories, a political leader is at odds with an idealistic public servant who is concerned about a danger involving public waters!

The play contains much thought-provoking dialogue. Ibsen looks at the interrelationships among politicians, the press, science, and the general public. His characters question issues of truth, authority, and majority rule. Dr. Stockmann begins as a noble character, but I thought he becomes too over-the-top and in some scenes is reduced to a shrill, dogmatic cartoon (especially when he delivers a bizarre rant about poodles and hens). I honestly wasn't sure what Ibsen was trying to accomplish in some of the doctor's more outrageous dialogue.

Still, "Enemy" remains a compelling piece of art. For an intriguing companion text, try "Inherit the Wind," by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee, which has some similar themes and motifs.

This book is definitely not the most exciting book in the world. Enemy of the People has a specific point, a message it is trying to reveal. Dr. Stockmann loses the support of his entire town after finding out that the local baths are contaminated. Just to make things worse, his brother, Peter, is mayor and actually manipulates the situation to turn the press against him. This play shows how the majority is often wrong and, more importantly, that the strongest man is the one who can stand alone. What made this book lose a star is that, in fact, the first act takes a lot to finish because it appears to be so boring. I may have put this book away if I didn't have to read it. However the book quickly improves and, although it is never exciting, it is interesting.

This powerful play is my first experience reading Henrik Ibsen and WOW! The conflict is timeless and the leading character Dr. Stockmann reminded me of Sir Thomas More.

After I read the play I did not want to put the book down and wanted more. I flipped to the front of my edition translated by Christpher Hampton and read his nihilistic introduction. Mr. Hampton missed the whole point and somehow thought Dr. Stockman really WAS the "enemy of the people". Hampton sounded like one of the townspeople from the mob in Act Four when he wrote:

"This is to simplify Ibsen's intent; because however sympathetic Ibsen feels towards Dr Stockmann's cause, he is too subtle and profound a dramatist not to know that there are few figures more infuriating than the man who is always right. Stockmann's sincerity, naivety and courage co-exist with an innocent vanity, an inability to compromise and an indifference to the havoc caused in the lives of his family and friends, as well as his own, by his dogged pursuit of principle."

Hampton's edition is a nice size with print that is easy to read. I loved the story and the characters and I highly recommend it to all. I have lived the experience and have been "the enemy" so I understood Dr. Stockmann but I learned from Christopher Hampton and my own experience not everyone will "get it."

Often funny. Often bizarre. Always deep. Peer Gynt first appears to me as this self-centered youth who cares only for himself and the satisfaction of his impulses and whims at any cost. He is the quick non-thinker, who leaves a life of relative conventionality to roam as a dissolute wanderer. He is indeed all of these things, but all the while his "self" is not "centered". At the end of his adventures as a libertine, the grey-bearded Peer Gynt is at a cross-roads, and he asks the character of the Button Moulder this question: "What, after all, is this being one's self?" The Button Moulder replies that being one's self means slaying one's Self, and furthermore "observing the Master's intentions in all things." Peer Gynt contemplates this... restraint and delayed gratification have never been manageable themes with him. In my opinion, this whole idea of the search for the "self" is what Peer Gynt is all about. At the very final crossroads he is redeemed by the undeserved forgiveness and love of Solvieg, the woman he has once abandoned... this scene being a beautiful picture of the grace and love of God that is available to the Peer Gynt in every reader.

Ibsen originally wrote Peer Gynt as a poem, and therefore we lose the Norwegian rhyme and metre in any English translation. To compensate if at all possible, I suggest reading the play while listening to the incidental music of Edvard Grieg, specifically composed to accompany the live performance of Peer Gynt. (Note: My review is based on the translation by Peter Watts).

He writes like a comedian, waving his fist at your face, all while enthronging you to read on!

A genuinely wonderful comedy, not a bit dated, & a wiser way into Ibsen than any of the later & generally rated greater problem plays. Peer is immensely charming, if reckless & stupid from time to time. He learns, some, with special assistance from Mom & a perhaps incredibly grand sweetheart. Christopher Fry's translation (Oxford) seems particularly nice.

Hedda Gabler is a wonderful story of a woman desperately trying to have control over her life. Married to a husband she doesn't love and pregnant with a child she doesn't want, Hedda seeks comfort in an old friend. There are enough surprizes in this play to keep it interesting throughout. Ibsen uses his brilliant writing style to capture the very essence of Hedda. I highly recommend Hedda Gabler as well as other works by Henrik Ibsen.

Hedda Gabler lives in an absolute prison. Her idylic residence is a prison, her marriage to a hopeful "ilustrious intellectual" is a prison, but above all, she lives imprisoned by herself, trapped by the social parameters that demand her to live the way she does. Hedda just can't figure out how to get out of that tedious state. She's intelligent, cold, severe; Gabler has an almost prodigious capacity to obtain all the information she inquires about the people around her; she manipulates them, she seems to get involved, but she simply tries to take advantage of the situation. Apparently, she doesn't feel much, but in reality, Hedda is in constant turmoil - her involvement has to do, almost exclusively, with what she just cannot allow herself to do.

For this woman, being able to have some sort of "power" over someone becomes the most exciting of all experiences, however - there's a point when she no longer will be able to manipulate the situation on her favor, she will realize how many forces have power over her; therefore, she will simply do the most congruent and coherent of things, as unexpected and shocking as the outcome of this play could possibly be.

Hedda Gabler is a play filled with tensions and the theme of power play. Personally, I feel that Hedda Gabler is a reflection of a woman trapped in the wrong time. She is one who wants power but is denied of it due to her gender and also her status in the society and all that she needs is to just sit at home and recieve visitors. She has no aims to look forward to and I believe that it is suffocating for this woman. If she had been born in this time of the century, I believe that she would not land up in that patathic end.

Henrik Ibsen has written a penetrating play about marriage and gender roles in 19th century Europe. In what was surely shocking to European society at the time, Ibsen attacked the system that reduced women to mere possessions. In a society where women didn't even have the vote, this must have been a shocking statement.

The play is very short at 72 pages. I'm not going to divulge the plot but I will say that I found the play to be average. I will also say I'm not a big fan of reading plays, since they are usually written in a form to be performed, not read as literature. I also fault Ibsen with writing a play that fails to show the consequences of his characters actions. When Nora changes and leaves at the end, we get no information on what happens to her children, who have now been officially abandoned by their mother. In this way, Ibsen's play can be seen as a precursor to today's problems, where both men and women duck out of the family life. While this may be "liberating" to the woman (or the man, for that matter), it doesn't bode well for the kids. Maybe Ibsen could have written a sequel showing the kids growing up without a mother and getting hooked on liquor, or getting pregnant at age thirteen.

This play is most likely a big hit in the feminist cliques and the "find yourself" crowd. For me, I'd have rather read something else. It still had some good points, though. The dialogue at times was pretty snappy, and I kept picturing actresses that might play Nora as I read through the play. Ibsen is also certainly adept at characterization and pacing. Overall, average.

The Norwegian author Henrik Ibsen wrote an insightful play about marriage and the role of women in Ibsens time (19th century Europe). I am sure that "A dolls house" must have been a shock to the European society when Ibsen first published this book. He criticised the system that demoted women to mere property and this must have been an outrageous statement in a society where women didn't even have the right to vote!

The author himself said that this play was about human rights, not women's rights. While I believe this to be true, I still have no problems understanding why the female rights groups says that "A dolls house" is about women's rights. Whilst this play was written over a hundred years ago, many of the issues about women discussed in "A dolls house" are still applicable today. I think Nora is a *great* role model for a woman of the new millennium!

If you, like me, had to read this as a part of your college literature requirements, give it another try! It is a wonderful book.

Henrik Ibsen in one of the most famous Norwegian writers thoughout the world. And he is known for his plays where he gives a critical view upon the society.
In this play, everything happens around the main character Nora. She is innocent, naiv and has no education at all, just like most women of her social rank had at that time. Her husband, Torvald, is well known in the city, and his wife is just a "doll". She isn't supposed to have opinions on anything, just smile and look pretty in this male dominated world.
When Torvald Helmer finds out that his wife has "stole" money from her father to be able to pay for a health insitution for him, he's shocked. Nora, not understand what she might have done wrong, was only trying to help her husband, and yet protect her dying father. She wakes up, starting feel independant, wanting to discover herself...
Ibsen was a master of showing different sides of the social levels, and giving a critic view on what he didn't like. He has done it yet again, focusing on the marriage of these two people. Supression and a male dominated world is central aspects, and also the growing feminisme.
The book is worth reading for anyone how loves to read. It is truly one of Ibsen's best plays!

What is the essay of the Doll's House look like? May you show me the essay of the Doll's House for me?

I don't think the only other person to review this book quite realized what it is all about, or had even seen the book!! This is a really excellent teaching tool for anyone who is faced with the daunting task of explaining Ibsen's masterpiece in the classroom. Shafer is an eminent scholar, yet the book is very readable and user friendly and would make an excellent teaching tool for both novice and seasoned professional.