Hey everyone once again, its entry #8 time!

In this entry, I will try to respond to an essay or an review I have found on the internet that deals with this book. It was hard to find some "free" critism of this play, since most of the critics I have found were for a fee or something. But luckily this one was free and I quite liked it so I will respond to it in the next paragraph.
This critism I have found has quite similar ideas and opinions on things that happened in book just as I did, so I found quite interesting. The first thing that me and the person that wrote that critism agree with is the fact, that a mother of 3 children would not probably just left her children only to find herself. Ibsen probably have not thought about this when he was writing this book or maybe he got somehow influenced by the society as well and was not able to see this connection between mother and a child. The author of that criticism appears to be a mother so I think she knows what she is talking about and I do not think that these connection change as the society develops.
Another theme that the critic talks about is the thing about Nora forging her father's signature, thus violating the law to save her husband and trying to let her father rest in peace. At first I did not even noticed this thing, but when I read that critic I realised what this was about and I agree with what is written in the critics. A woman in that society could have no chance to know the laws very well so she could have no idea that what she did was a serious crime and she could get severly punished for this. What I also like about this critics is, that she talks about the law to live vs. law of the society, by that i mean: "would you steal food to feed your starving family" quote mention in the critic. I think that any woman or man would do the same to save her/his husband/wife.
And that is about all I wanted to say, I did not find anything in the critics I did not agree with.