Krogstad As A Potential Foil For Nora

Throughout Nora’s various interactions with Krogstad concerning her debt and his blackmail to keep his job, their conversation at the end of Act Two reveals both Nora’s complete love for her husband and Krogstad’s motivations behind his supposed immoral nature, interestingly presenting Krogstad as a potential foil for Nora. Earlier in Act One, Torvald reveals that Krogstad once committed forgery, and through his “sharp practices,” he caused everyone to look down at his “moral breakdown,” depicting the reasoning behind various character assumptions of Krogstad’s despicable nature (70). While the revelation illustrates the surface interpretation of Krogstad’s character, it also mirrors Nora’s actions in that she attempts to avoid conviction

of her forgery, suggesting that Krogstad remains a complex character instead of the stereotypical villain that all portray him as. During his discussion with Nora, this remains particularly prevalent as he questions Torvald actions, wondering if her “husband’s love for [her] run[s] so thin,” emphasizing that a true marriage would possess no secrets or doubt of either spouse (86).

With his question, Krogstad illustrates his more humane characteristics by recognizing human emotion, portraying him with more than simply a base desire for societal destruction, unlike what many other characters believe. Additionally, Krogstad underscores that, while his actions remain immoral, neither Nora nor Torvald “think of [Krogstad’s children],” before Torvald gave him his notice, implying that he possesses at least a partially selfless motivation to keep his job (86). As Krogstad considers more than himself in his negotiations, the play illustrates that his nature remains inherently complex, steadily moving him away from the role of a static antagonist. Furthermore, Krogstad conveys that he “want[s] to recoup” rather than receive any monetary compensation, indicating that he dedicated the previous “year and a half” to heighten his social status in the community

(87). From this steady determination, Krogstad’s actions and desire reveal that he prefers to regain his honor and image through hard work rather than deception, promoting him as a semi-virtuous character despite his ultimate aspiration to usurp Torvald from his position. While Krogstad’s words hint as his complex nature during the negotiation, Nora constantly defends Torvald as a great man, initially presenting that “he’ll never [give you a job],” affirming that Torvald would remain morally righteous in his actions (87).

This primarily highlights Nora’s all-encompassing love for Torvald that allows her to believe in him despite his subtle flaws, underscoring the irony of her viewpoint as Torvald utterly fails to act selflessly in the end of the play. Moreover, Nora emphasizes to Krogstad that “[he’ll] see, [he’ll] see,” depicting her trust in her husband to stand resolute against Krogstad’s threat (88). From this, Nora’s belief only further promotes the irony of the situation, as Torvald quickly succumbs to selfish desires and immediately sacrifices Nora instead of himself when presented with Krogstad’s demands. With the entire conversation highlighting Krogstad’s complex character and Nora’s blind faith, the play portrays Krogstad as a potential foil for Nora, as both committed the crime of forgery, and Krogstad depicts Nora’s possible future where she, due to her crime and disillusionment with her husband, now looks down upon those who act like

Torvald. As hints of Krogstad’s moral nature reveal themselves to the audience beneath other character’s demeaning insults about his character, the play presents him not as a stock villain, but as a mirror of a feasible future for the protagonist, contributing complex characterization that adds realism to the overall work.