Certainly, an argument can be made that Torvald possesses the hubris of tragic figures. Much like King Oedipus, he is convinced that his perspective of things is the absolute right. Blinded by his adherence to patriarchy and his overriding pride, Torvald fails to perceive the loving significance of Nora's surreptitious act of obtaining money for her husband's cure, and instead myopically focuses upon the trivialities of social conventions as he chides Nora,
Whaat a horrible awakening! All these eight years--she who was my joy and pride--a hypocrite, a liar--worse, worse--a criminal!
Thus, much like Oedipus, who faced with truths denies them, Torvald, in his hubris as he clings tenaciously to social convention, denies the possibility of living life in a different manner in the name of love.
Torvald is "wronged", in a way, but is not a tragic victim. He maintains his position at the bank in the end, a position which represents professional progress for him, and only loses his wife. Though losing Nora is a significant blow to him, Torvald seems likely to continue on much as before with the nurse taking care of the children and without Nora to spend his money.
If this is the only change for him, I find viewing Torvald's situation as tragic and find viewing him as a victim equally difficult.
In Ibsen's A Doll's House, though Torvald Helmer may seem a "tragic victim" when he learns that Nora tends to leave him, I have little sympathy for his predicament.
It is true that in many ways Torvald is the result of the society of which he is a part. However, he is not concerned with his family, specifically his wife, most of all, but by the way the society will judge him based upon what Nora has done—even though she did so to save his life.
Torvald sees himself as a superior human being. He treats Krogstad terribly. Krogstad—though somewhat of a scoundrel—does everything with his own family—his children—in mind. The irony here is that Torvald who thinks he is so great because he comes from upper-class of society, is actually less civilized than the man who has little going for him. (Krogstad has been treated like dirt at both Torvald's hands and Nora's. I feel more sympathy for him than Torvald; and at the end, Krogstad is willing to forget the entire incident with Nora: it is Kristine who insists that Torvald find out what has been going on.)
Torvald's arrogance, as you so aptly put it, is extremely difficult to tolerate.
HELMER:
Didn't you say no one had been here? (Wags his finger.) My little songbird must never do that again. A songbird must have a clean beak to sing with; otherwise she'll start twittering out of tune. (Puts his arm around her waist.) Ins't that the way we want things? Yes, of course it is.
When he gets Krogstad's letter (a letter Krogstad would willingly take back), we see clearly Torvald's priorities. His friend (Rank) has said his fair-wells and has gone off to die alone, but Torvald is untouched. Then he reads the letter and Nora places herself in harm's way. Torvald, without an ounce of chivalry or love, cares nothing for his wife, only himself.
NORA:
It is true. I've loved you more than anything else in the world.
HELMER:
I ought to have guessed that something of this sort would happen...All your father's recklessness and instability he has handed on to you. No religion, no morals, no sense of duty! [He could be speaking of himself.] Oh, how I have been punished for closing my eyes to his faults! I did it for your sake...Now you have destroyed all my happiness. You have ruined my whole future..."
And when the letter to Nora arrives from Krogstad:
HELMER:
Nora! No—I must read it once more. Yes, yes, it's true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!
NORA:
What about me?
HELMER:
You too, of course...
Torvald has no sense of self-sacrifice, as Nora does. She has saved his life and all he cares about is his reputation. He is too blind to realize that had Nora not borrowed the money to take him to a safer climate for his health, he would be dead with no reputation to worry about.
Krogstad, by comparison is self-sacrificing to the point that he was willing to do anything, even something unethical, to save his children. In comparing the two men, it is easy to see who is really a tragic victim: and it is not Helmer.
Helmer is a man oblivious to the needs of everyone but himself. I find I have no sympathy for him.
Torvald Helmer’s tragedy in the story A Doll’s House is his inability to change. Change would have helped Torvald greatly if only he had possessed the flexibility to think of himself as Nora’s husband and not as Nora’s owner. His inability to change extended to the way that he viewed his role in the family. He felt that, being the bread winner of the family, he deserved Nora’s unquestionable devotion. He even saw her behavior as a form of personal entertainment of which he also felt worthy.
Yet, Torvald was no different than any other man in his same position. He lived in a time in which women were common social fixtures and were, literally, the property of their husbands. Therefore, although Torvald’s behavior is not uncommon, the tragedy is that he may be the only man in his circle of friends, family and relatives to experience the pain and humiliation of being abandoned by his wife. The tragedy mostly stems from the fact that he will be looked upon as “the husband of a bad, immoral woman”. The social scandal that Nora’s elopement will bring will taint Torvald’s reputation, and perhaps even the trust that he earned at his job. A man who could “control” a wife was seen as a weak man. How would Torvald respond to the hundreds of questions that he will be asked about Nora when he does not know exactly what he did wrong?
However, there was one thing he could have figured out: That Nora, despite of her social position, was still a human being with needs and emotions. If he were to admit to that much he would have been willing to think differently about what she did. However, it was this lack of care which made him too overconfident of Nora’s love. That is the biggest of all tragedies.
This is a very interesting question to consider, but obviously it is a question with many possible responses. You might benefit from placing it in the discussion posting area for this group to gain a full range of answers. From my perspective, I think your comment has it right. In Act Three, we do definitely feel sympathy for Helmer. The way that he is forced to gain a new insight into his own character and how he has treated Nora, and the maturity with which he faces the truth from Nora endears us to him as a character. However, in my opinion, this maturity is not enough to turn him into a tragic victim. Throughout the majority of the play he has been presented as an arrogant, condescening and patronising husband to Nora. Whilst Act Three does paint him as a more human character, it is too little too late. It is interesting as well to note that while he definitely does mature, he does not mature enough to realise that their marriage cannot be patched up, indicating that he still has lots of room left for growth.
Get Ahead with eNotes
Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.
Already a member? Log in here.