Doll's House: an amateur analysis of narrative mode, characterization and structure

The Doll’s House is a short story written by Katherine Mansfield. It has about 2500 words and is within the norm of short story. The protagonist Kezia leads the reader through her innocent childhood experiences. The story speaks of and is knit around the social evil of class separation and propagation of class consciousness from generation to generation. The doll’s house, itself a symbol arrives the Burnell family and sets the story into motion. 

The narrative mode used is description. The author uses picturesque language to paint a visual picture of the setting and characters. But she never is overgenerous with the number of words. Her descriptions are crisp and to the point. Sufficient details are given about situations, things and characters. However she takes extra care and space to describe the doll’s house which has central space and layers of significance in the story. Speech mode is used wherever verbal exchanges take place. 

 

There are only two major scenes and one last scene- the Burnells’ house, the school and the last scene where the Kelveys sit and reflect. There are three scene shifts and all of them are natural and essential for the flow of the story.

There are about 10 characters named in the story. But if one counts only the active or significant ones, ignoring the mere mention of names, we get six which is within the norm of a short story. They are, Aunt Beryl, Isabel, Kezia, Lil, Else and Lena (in the order of appearance). Among them Kezia, Lil and Else are central to the story.

The story follows linear chronological progression. The incidents mentioned happen sequentially in order. The story begins on one fine summer day at the Burnells’ home when the doll’s house gifted by Mrs. Hay was brought in. Everyone is amazed at the beauty and details of the doll’s house. The three children of the house are lured by the novelty of the new plaything. The next day at school they tell their friends about it and all are amazed. Everyday two of them would visit the Burnells’ and see the doll’s house. The school also has the Kelvey children Lil and Else who are not of the same class as others. There is no one to speak to them, no one to like them. Except them all have seen the doll’s house. Kezia wants to show it to them, but has no permission. One day when everyone is busy with the guests, she leads the Kelveys to the doll’s house. But she is caught red handed and the Kelveys are chased away. The Kelvey children walk away in fear. When they sit to relax, they feel happy for the little they see of the doll’s house.

The author uses third person narrative to tell us the story. This technique is advantageous in letting us know of what is within characters’ minds. Narrator is a person other than the characters. This omniscient narrator lets us into the mental, psychological and emotional landscapes of all the characters. By looking at life from outside, the author has a bird’s eye view of the social mentality. Because of this point of view the evil of class segregation and its shameless perpetuation is evidently visible to the reader, but not to the characters.

In the beginning of the story we see that the doll’s house comes from outside. It is foreign. It is new and beautiful with all its red carpets, paintings with golden frames, red and green furniture, beds and bedclothes, cradle, stove, dresser and cutlery. The hook is stuck fast. It takes a bit of effort to open it. It also has a smell that is unbearable. Though it is well decorated and good looking, it emanates a stench so unbearable that it could make any one seriously ill according to Aunt Beryl. But when the attractions within are revealed, they were ready to ignore the stench to embrace the pleasure of the beauty of the doll’s house.

Here, the doll’s house represents the society itself. It has a stench very unbearable. But when opened- like the doll’s house- it reveals the pleasures within and makes everyone forget the stench. The stench is the cancer of social evil; to be precise, class separation and pride. People are ready to be blind to this evil because it gives them access to certain privileges and pleasures. People satisfy themselves with the artificial structures of the society while being inert to the stench of branding in the name of class.

What is the result? The members of the doll’s house become like the father and mother dolls- sprawling very stiff, insensitive and stiff as though they had fainted. And the children- asleep. All of them are unfit for the house. “They didn’t look as thought they belonged”.

There is another important consequence. Most of the observers were overwhelmed by the pomp of the doll’s house, but failed to see the most beautiful object in it- an exquisite lamp with white globe on the dining table, which was so life like. Everyone except Kezia missed the lamp. Why? What made her see it? Kezia is the only one in the family who is not yet indoctrinated with the evil of class system. In the innocence of her childhood, untainted by pretences of pride and prejudice she sees the lamp and liked it frightfully. It was the only thing- animate or inanimate- that fit in the doll’s house. The lamp seemed to smile to Kezia, to say, “I live here”. For her, “it was the best of all”. Even Isabel forgot to mention the lamp while boasting about it! It was the only real thing and it was the only thing unnoticed by the perpetrators of class system.

The school is a place where everyone mixes. It is the same place where innocent children practice the evil of class system learned at home. The Kelvey children- Lil and our Else- were the victims. They were the daughters of a poor but hardworking washerwoman. Her hard work doesn’t earn her respect, but is labeled by her poverty. Her poverty enabled the class society to decide that her husband was in prison. Even teachers looked down upon the Kelveys because they were daughters of a hardworking but poor woman. It is as if people couldn’t understand it was poverty that made Lil wear a dress assembled from curtains and table clothes! Else, an interesting and important character is always silent. No one has seen her smile. It seems she has accepted her fate of being hated. Or may be she represents her class whose heart is frozen because of centuries of being treated with hatred and arrogance.

Little Kezia desired to invite the Kelveys to see the doll’s house. “Certainly not. You know quite well why not” was the answer from her mother. Aunt Beryl also says the same in the end of the story. But truly, does anyone really know why not? I don’t think so. The myth of class is handed down generations as an abstract concept concretized in attitudes and actions. What is the reason? This is a relevant question, and I don’t think the stake holders have a reasonably convincing answer! Lena’s insensitive mockery at school is an evidence of this. Does that child know why she did so? No. She was only following what was instructed. Here we also see that the victims are also trained to take insult- with a silly, shame-faced smile.

Let’s come back to Kezia. She is innocent. Untainted by class system. When she got an opportunity she invited the Kelveys to see the doll’s house. She wanted to share the joy. She has a sense of justice; all have seen the doll’s house, so must the Kelveys. But the guardians of purity pounce on her innocent attempt and thwart her attempt. Aunt Beryl chases the Kelveys and gives Kezia a sermon, cold and proud.

Kelveys take the scolding without surprise and leave the scene. Even the omniscient narrator pretends as if she doesn’t know what’s going on in the Kelvey’s thoughts. But then the sweetest part of the story follows. Before falling silent, with a smile, our Else says, “I seen the little lamp”. The smile is rare, but real. Else shares something in common with Kezia- probably innocence of childhood which enables them to see the lamp. They are content with seeing the lamp. Else’s smile, together with Kezia’s innocence leaves the reader with the hope of a better tomorrow where everyone is equal.

Epic to Romance in British Literature: Role of Kingship and the Feminine

Epic to Romance in British Literature: Role of Kingship and the Feminine

(Notes prepared from  Paul Poplawski's English Literature in Context)

Epic is otherwise known as heroic poetry in Old English terminology. Strict definition of heroic poetry says it ended in 1066 with the battle of Hastings. But a loose definition of epic poetry says they are long narrative celebration of military ethos and courageous individuals who risk life and limb for honour of themselves or of others. This longer, loose definition of epic fits well for Middle English Romantic poetry as well. The only difference would be that the scene shifts from chivalry on the battle field to the internal, private, psychological arena. This way Romance is a continuation of OE heroic poetry or they both are similar. But for some they are separate and different. Romance comes from the Old French romans which meant a story told in French. Therefore, the initial difference was in language, not in structure, theme, etc.

Beowulf is considered the best epic poem. Many OE poems are hybrids with religious or elegiac elements in them. They would be short as well sometimes. These examples outside the definition indicate problems and limitations of self contained genres. Over centuries when times change along with language, we have evidences of OE stories changing genre to become Romantic poems during ME.

For Normans and Anglo Saxons heroic poetry was a living tradition. They lived their lives fighting and singing those poems. Warriors dreamt of becoming the characters they celebrated in their songs. They felt they were also making history and songs by being brave in the face of odds.

Place of Women in Epics and Romance

Without elaborating if one wants an answer, this is it: there was no place for women in epics. Heroic poetry was deeply masculinated. The nature of activities described in there excludes women. Comitatus of Tacitus talks about the retinue for fighting elite. There was shared accommodation for them where they delighted in each others' company- all male fighters. If one is an outstanding fighter and proves his mettle, he will be awarded land, home, estate and facilitated marriage. Even after becoming rich and settled such would continue to serve the king whenever the king needs them on a retainer basis. These elite fighters also had their own gang of fighters to keep. All male companies!

Women bore children and brought them up. Nothing else is prominently mentioned in epics. But if we look at Beowulf, one of his main enemies is a woman. Woman's political role becomes evident in marriages which seal pacts between tribes. Women carried physical evidences of pacts in their own bodies. These can be considered exceptions.

Kingship and rulership

Medieval kings were fighters. Royal lineage was strictly kept. The family kept authority and land to themselves strictly. But in Anglo Saxon tradition, kingship was a flexible affair. It depended on need and claims of blood. When there was a need, they could consider men out of the clan to be kings. King was the center of the nation, but king was not the nation itself.

Powerful kings did not limit themselves to their little kingdoms. They ruled trans-tribe. Still their authority had limits. This is evident in Beowulf’s story. Beowulf went to serve Hrothgar of Denmark despite King Hygelac's wish to remain in Geats. King Hygelac did not have the authority to prevent Beowulf from going to Hrothgar. Beowulf was disregarded in Geats. But he built repute through his exploits at Heorot. He represented a nation- like medieval knights of romance. Heroic poetry of Old English is ‘equal’ to chivalric romance of Middle English.

Overlapping

Late heroic poetry, historic chronicle and early English romance overlap. Chronicle was used to fix dates and years to fix movable feasts, etc. But chronicle also gave us heroic poetry, historic commentary, critique and commemorations.

Beowulf, Chronicle and Brut are about kingship between the lines. Brut by Lazamon is between heroic narrative and metrical chronicle. It is also romance in its motif. It was influenced by Insular French. Interaction between Insular French and English brought forth a new identity. This enabled writing about King Arthur. So far such writings were about Romans (Trojans, Alexander, etc.) or about the French (Charlemagne, Roland, etc.). Brut has OE alliterations but also has rhyme, syllabic rhythm and assonance. It lacks presence of distressed damsels like OE heroic poetry.

Treachery has central role in poems like Song of Roland which are influenced by French. Treachery was a cardinal sin and honour was a cardinal chivalric virtue. Honour is celebrated in oath taking on relics. These scenes are picturesquely described in many such poems.

Descriptions of arming scenes, fights, tournaments, etc. show martial rituals of cultural importance. These show the importance of good rulership. King should be as good as best of his men and more. King should be the epitome of justice, administer of law, mediator, peace maker, etc. Such ideal kingship is detailed in short reign of Aurelie who build halls, churches, restored buildings, administered laws, etc. well.

Good rulership is always a concern or theme in this era. It reflects the political circumstances of the period.

Place of the Feminine

All these establish the continuity between heroic poetry and ME Romance. But for romance, at the centre there is a more feminine preoccupation with courtliness, love and marriage unlike epic's masculine interests. These though speaks of love doesn't give up the characteristics of epics like centrality of kingship and courtly integrity. We also find that the line between a saint's life and romance is blurred. Thus romance stories could stand comfortably adjacent to rather than in opposition to religious material. The separation of sacred and secular is slowly beginning to disappear in medieval literature.

Virgin Mary

Feudalism as an economy was so unfriendly to female agency and autonomy. But we see that in Romance, it portrays the lady as pre-eminent and the knight as her vassal. This looks quite strange because of the eroticized and analogized model of feudal homage! Devotion to Mary is at the root of and enhances this portrayal of woman. Historically we see that women were the audience to Romance, apart from providing content to romantic poems (marriage). Narrators identify with women's perspective! Let us put it these way- women were alienated from real political power, but were necessary for the genetic line in order to maintain power and reign. She was therefore offered an alternative world- that of arts and letters where she could reign and be patrons.

By the end of 15th century, romance was not about military function and was fast becoming an icon of social prestige available to whoever could afford it. But before that happened, it was the ultimate expression of chivalry. Though we mentioned the role of women above, we should not hesitate in stating that the owners of English romances were most likely to be men. The class of men who could have it was widened. Lesser knights, provincial men, burghers and the mercantile class could consume romance by 15th century. It was offered to anyone who was free and gentle (Note that free and gentle excluded serfs and commoners!).