Looking closely at how weakness and strength are represented in at least two
of the works you have studied, discuss the significance of the relationship
between the two.
The primordial archetype of the all-conquering hero posits absolute moral rigidity, overt
displays of strength and abject honesty as the epitome of strength, whereas
comparatively morally grey, deceitful characters are considered cowardly and weak.
Henrik Ibsen’s classic realist play ‘A Doll’s House’ and Marjane Satrapi’s seminal
coming of age graphic novel ‘Persepolis’ complicate normative conceptions of strength
and weakness by depicting characters disoriented by an oppressive society exercising
autonomy and expressing strength in manners typically considered shows of
weakness. The vicissitudes endured by Nora and Marji, the protagonists, seem to
indicate the underdog’s weapons by necessity differ from the victor, which Ibsen and
Satrapi highlight through depictions of petty mechanics of defense, deception, a
resistance to moral fixity and the necessity of existing society.
Ibsen and Satrapi establish the weaknesses of their protagonists nearly the instant
they are introduced, as well as, providing them with their initial, seemingly infantile
symbols of covert resistance. As an undereducated, financially dependent woman
repressed by the Victorian patriarchal hegemony, Nora is seemingly rendered
helpless. Her husband, Torvald lavishes her with infantilizing nicknames such as ‘my
helpless little mortal’, ‘squirrel’ and most frequently ‘skylark’, her association with an
ornamental bird in a cage signifying that she is trapped in her role as his frivolous wife.
Torvald’s power over those around him also has his financial dimension, every
character in the play save Dr Rank who is dependent on his money. However, Nora
has mechanisms of defense against him, ones considered laughable by the patriarchy
but invaluable to women, who must be careful not to show their hand. Her womanhood
isn’t merely a weakness, but can be wielded as a weapon – considering her affection
of helplessness when practicing the tarantella, begging Torvald to come watch her and
‘not leave her for even a minute’ when she wants to keep him from reading Krogstad’s
letter. She allows Torvald to think of her as a ‘spendthrift’ hellbent on buying petty
things so she could continue paying off the loan that saved their family, hiding behind
a sexist stereotype. Her symbol of resistance is a macaroon, hastily eaten against
Torvald’s orders. While she may pretend she would ‘never think of going against him’,
her continued consumption of this very typically feminine sweet treat hints at her iron
will.
In contrast to Nora, Marji seems more overtly independent and belligerent, her
weakness in the face of totalitarian Islamic regime seemingly originating from her
youth, her symbols of rebellion being the epitome of western adolescence, but
Satrapi’s depiction of her growing into womanhood indicates that regardless of her
comparative power, her gender condemns her to the same sexism that Nora endures.
Marji’s childhood is marked by violence, the adults around her perpetually accosted
by the puppets of the regime – her mother is assaulted and faces threat of rape, while
her beloved uncle Anoosh is killed. With even the adults in her life subject to
degradation, her youth renders her doubly helpless. When she is accosted by two
elderly veiled women (guardians of the revolution) for wearing western clothes and
Michael Jackson pin, her only form of defense is lying, eventually dissolving in tears
as she concocts a story about a wicked stepmother, the drawing of her blubbering face
provoking repulsion in the reader. When she smokes cigarettes and headbangs to Kim
Wilde, she simultaneously resists her parents and the regime, shouting ‘Dictator! You
are the guardian of the revolution in this home’, drawing a parallel between the
regulating forces of her parents and the regime. But adulthood will not free her from
the oppression of the regime. A panel shortly after her return to Iran depicts her form
being dwarfed by murals of martyrs, staring up at them with a wary eye, the contrast
in size created by spatial mechanics conveying her helplessness in the face of
systemic oppression. The Iranian population’s collective voicelessness is further
conveyed by the choice of not featuring speech heavy content or captions in her
depiction of a raided party that led to the death of a friend. Overall, Ibsen and Satrapi
highlight the fact that though their personal degrees of strength may vary, they do not
diminish one’s weakness in the face of a more powerful oppressor, and that for the
weak, petty symbols of defense like macaroons and cigarettes are actually vital to their
exercise of autonomy.
Furthermore, ‘A Doll’s House’ and ‘Persepolis’ complicate their definitions of strength
and weakness by representing deception – considered cowardly – as an efficient
manner of retaining a measure for power against an oppressor. ‘A Doll’s House’
presents a deception as a terrible but unavoidable sin used in the service of right.
While Nora is considered a childish character, Ibsen highlights her recognition of
Torvald’s inability to confront the savagery of life through his reaction to her wildly
dancing the tarantella, when he complains that it is a ‘trifle too realistic’. This underpins
Nora’s choice not to tell him about the true extent of his sickness, the loan, as well as
the severity of Dr Rank’s illness, making deception the key to ensuring his mental
wellbeing. But Ibsen suggests that in order to genuinely seize power and
independence in the face of patriarchal hegemony, Nora must make a clean
presentation of her actions and willfulness, fully claiming them, as evidenced by Mrs.
Linde playing the part as deus ex machina by convincing Krogstad to leave his letter
in the letterbox, exposing Nora, seeing it as necessary to her happiness.
In contrast, ‘Persepolis’ presents lying and concealment as wholly necessary when
enduring a viciously intolerant regime, and a more positive source of strength. For one,
Nora is a single person resisting a domineering but non-violent husband. Marji and her
family are a few of thousands of people attempting to survive imprisonment and
execution, seeming to present collective deception as a public good. In order to protect
themselves from prying eyes, Marji’s mother had to put up blackout curtains, indicating
how the divide between public and private behaviour widens when people are not
permitted to enjoy simple pleasures within their own homes. This dichotomy between
public conformity masking private rebellion is further illustrated through two juxtaposed
panels depicting Marji and her college mates in hijabs versus them with loose hair and
makeup. When Marji and her family are accosted by teenage boys with guns who
threaten to search their house for alcohol, her grandmother lies about having diabetes
that isn’t presented as a necessary evil but a necessary good, permitting them to pour
the alcohol away and avoid violence. While Ibsen and Satrapi vary in their moral
conceptions of deception, they both identify it as necessary to minimize harm, and do
not characterize it as a cowardly act, but a brave alternative to conformity.
‘A Doll’s House’ and ‘Persepolis’ make a final, powerful statement against normative
conceptions of weakness and strength by redefining the weakest of acts – the retreat.
In ‘A Doll’s House’, Nora’s decision to leave her home marks the beginning of selfactualisation and freedom from the shackles of patriarchal domesticity. In Ibsen’s
temporal context, leaving one’s family was a horrific act, Victorian standards
dismissing women who did so as the pinnacle of both emotional and moral weakness.
Helmer calls upon this worldview by reminding Nora of her ‘duty’ to him and their
children, suggesting that abandoning them during a period of marital difficulty would
be immoral and weak. Nora confronts him by pointing out that she has a ‘more
important duty’ to herself. She also posits her departure as an act of familial love – an
attempt to gain the worldly knowledge and experience she requires to be a wise
mother and equal partner. ‘A Doll’s House’ follows the typical structure of a three-scene
play with exposition, conflict and resolution. Her departure at the end of the play
signifies a solution to the personal and societal problems posed by the narrative, as
well as the beginning of a new era on New Year’s day.
‘Persepolis’, being an autobiographical novel, covers a far wider swath of time, giving
it the opportunity to explore elements of strength and weakness in a retreat and
eventual return. In the context of modern Middle Eastern conflict and the refugee crisis,
the ultimate act of freedom is generally considered the act of leaving an oppressive,
war-torn nation for the freedom of safer locales. But just as Ibsen countered the norms
of his period, Satrapi does the same evaluating the necessity of a retreat and the
courage required to return. Marji’s decision to return to Iran after her hardships in
Austria isn’t a failure as she describes it, or a final submission to the oppression of the
regime, but an act of incredible strength and familial love. Her long hair is indicative of
her womanhood, needing to be covered by a veil, when in Iran. Her cutting her hair –
first to a bob and then to a punk crop – is symbolic of her distancing herself from war
and Iran. When she finally decides to return, her hair grows out and she considers the
veil a necessary compromise to see her family again, her return to conformity – an
incredible act of courage and love. Even her destructive relationship with Reza – which
could be perceived as her succumbing to the doctrine of a monogamous, conservative
culture – is a subversive act of strength. After avoiding people in Austria on talks of
war, changing news channels and even pretending to be French, she marries a former
soldier, saying, “sought in him a war I had escaped.” Though she ultimately divorces
him and immigrates to France, her relationship with Reza symbolizes her finally
confronting the horror of her country with open eyes and heart.
Overall, ‘A Doll’s House’ and ‘Persepolis’ counter the normative conceptions of retreat
and return in their contexts by depicting both as potential expressions of power, selfactualisation and strength. Despite the vast variability in their protagonists and the gap
in their temporal and spatial context, the two literary works present the relationship
between strength and weakness as infinitely compliant through the perspective of one
already weakened by society.
1678 words