Expectations, Introspection, and Suicide in Ibsen and Shakespeare - Literature Essay Samples

Both William Shakespeare, likely the greatest English playwright of all time, and Henrik Ibsen, arguably one of the most brilliant and influential modern dramatists, are known not only for the power of their tragedies but also for their memorable female characters. Among the most famous of these is ShakespeareÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s Ophelia, HamletÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s doomed lover, and Hedda Gabler, IbsenÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s most enduring female villain. At first glance, these two women do not have many similarities: dutifully obedient Ophelia suffers passively between her fatherÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s demands and HamletÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s mockery, while Hedda is scornful and manipulative to all those around her. However, upon more careful inspection, it becomes clear that the two characters have much more in common than simply being tragic female figures. In fact, it is their common gender that makes them remarkably similar. Hedda and Op helia ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ though created hundreds of years apart ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ are both helplessly (although sometimes subconsciously) influenced by the expectations of the men that surround them. Furthermore, thus indoctrinated in masculine hierarchies, both women are trapped in the social structures that these hierarchies propagate, rendered incapable of introspection or amending their positions. Finally, at the end of their respective plays, these very power structures that restrict the two women are the ones that ultimately leave them no choice but to break them: Ophelia descends into madness, and she and Hedda are forced to take their own lives.Though Hedda and Ophelia are players who are engaged through radically different worlds and social settings, the link of gender difference between the two is undeniable. Indeed, as John Russell Brown argues in his ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Representing Sexuality in ShakespeareÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s Plays,ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚â‚ ¬? nearly all modern dramatists cannot deny the influence of Shakespeare, especially when interrogating traditional gender hierarchies: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"So many plays deal outright withgender difference that anyone wishing to study or stage them needs to only to ask how Shakespeare dealt with these subjectsÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (169). This is especially the case in Hamlet, in which gender difference is ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"not centralÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Brown 169) to the play, but also in which it is glaringly apparent that the female characters are influenced by the expectations of the men surrounding them.The most obvious example of this working of masculine influence can be found in the beginning of the play, when the audience is first introduced to the character of Ophelia. The third scene of the opening act begins with Laertes instructing his sister to be wary of HamletÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s affections: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"The chariest maid is p rodigal enough / If she unmask her beauty to the moonbest safety lies in fearÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (1.3.36-7, 43). Though Ophelia seems to take his message to heart, she cannot help but comment on her brotherÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s own hypocrisy: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Do not / Show me the steep and thorny way to heavenÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? while he, on his ventures into Paris, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"himself the primrose path of dalliance treadsÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (1.3.48, 50). Notably, Laertes impatiently brushes aside his sisterÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s comment (ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"I stay too longÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (1.3.53)), and, on cue, Polonius enters to confirm the double standard that his son has set forth. Polonius dispatches his son to Paris to sow his wild oats, to learn that ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"to thine own self [one must be] trueÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (1.3.78). However, as Juliet Dusinberre remarks in her discourse on women and authority i n Shakespeare, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"[PoloniusÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™] daughter must not rely on her own judgmentÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (94). Even her conviction of HamletÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s sincerity arouses her fatherÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s contempt: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"You speak like a green girl / think yourself a baby / That you have taÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™en these tenders for true pay / Which are not sterlingÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (1.3.101, 105-107). Just as Laertes expects Ophelia to regard his advice as valuable even in its hypocrisy, so Polonius makes sure that ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"her whole education is geared to relying on other peopleÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s judgmentsÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Dusinberre 94). This ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"educationÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? is complete and in full force when Ophelia is sent to spy on the supposedly insane Hamlet. When Polonius comments ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"IÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ۈ ƒâ€šÃ‚â„¢ll loose my daughter to himÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (2.2.162) it is apparent that not only OpheliaÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s sexuality, but her judgment and her conscience, are the property of her father. By ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"allowing herself to acquiesceÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Dusinberre 94) to the deception of Hamlet, and thus to the overwhelming influence of the men around her, she is not only being false to her lover, but inevitably ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"false to herselfÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Dusinberre 94).The case that dutiful and deferential Ophelia is unquestionably influenced by the men around her is easy to make. But what about the willful Hedda, who seems not only to scorn but also to control the emotions of the men around her? Tesman, her husband, would presumably be the largest influence on Hedda. Yet, next to his wife, the mediocre scholar seems almost effeminate, having only Aunt Julie as ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"both father and mother to [him]à Æ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Ibsen 216). Indeed, just as Hamlet might rebuke himself for his own inaction, Hedda seems to do the same Tesman, whose effeminate ineptitude dictates that he ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Must like a whore unpack [his] heart with wordsÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Shakespeare 2.2.589), never truly becoming what Hedda wants him to be. What Hedda longs for is not ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"a contemptible onlooker on the worldÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Dusinberre 278) but ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Finally ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ an actionÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Ibsen 280). She never finds the latter in Tesman.Nonetheless, delving deeper into IbsenÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s drama, one can easily see that Hedda has been indoctrinated just as much, but not as explicitly, as her Shakespearean predecessor. Very early in the play, even before Hedda enters, it is apparent that she has inherited some kind of lifestyle expectations from her father: Aunt Julie, while listening to BertaÃÆ' ¢ €™s fears about Hedda, remarks ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"General GablerÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s daughter ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ the way she lived in the GeneralÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s day!ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (214). Significantly, we are introduced to Hedda not by her own name, but by immediate association with her father. Later, when Aunt Julie meets Hedda in person, it becomes even clearer that Hedda has some great stake in the social expectations impressed upon her: after mistaking Aunt JulieÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s hat for the maidÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s, then seeing her out with Tesman, Hedda exasperatedly remarks, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"But where did she get her manners, flinging her hat aroundPeople donÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™t act that wayÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (222). This obsession with the proper way to act, especially for fear of a scandal, takes on a particularly masculine tint when Hedda learns that her old schoolmate, Mrs. E lvsted, has come to town without permission. As Mrs. Elvsted asserts that ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"My husband doesnÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™t know that IÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™m goneÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (229) Hedda immediately replies in surprise, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"What, your husband doesnÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™t know?ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (229). Furthermore, she implicitly assumes that Mrs. Elvsted will be returning to him shortly: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"What do you think your husband will say when you go home again?ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (229). Despite her contempt for her own husband, Hedda would never leave him ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ she has been too much indoctrinated in a masculine social hierarchy. She naturally assumes that Mrs. Elvsted has not left her husband for good: when HeddaÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s schoolmate replies to her question of returning home, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Up there, to him?ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Ibsen 230), Hedda answer s, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Of course, of courseÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (230). To Hedda, a woman can never leave a spouse, who, no matter how effeminate, is male and therefore necessary to be attached to. One can even see scraps of the ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"educationÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? that Laertes and Polonius seek to give Ophelia in their ensuing conversation. When Mrs. Elvsted describes to Hedda the work she has done with Eilert Lovborg, she adds that he has ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"taught me to think, to understand all sorts of thingsÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (230). Like Hedda, the reader is ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"concealing an involuntary smileÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (230), knowing that the only thing Lovborg probably taught Mrs. Elvsted was to ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"understand thingsÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? just as he does. However, this smile can also be reserved for Hedda herself, for clearly she has been taught how to think just as Mrs. Elvsted has ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ wit hin a male-dominated social framework.Hedda and Ophelia are thus left to operate in a world of strictly male-influenced expectations that both women, clearly affected by the men around them, feel themselves implicitly required to uphold. The significant result of this influence is not only that both women are trapped in a masculine social structure, but also that they lack the capability for introspection ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ for fully comprehending the consequences of the social hierarchy and its direct effect on them. Again, in OpheliaÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s case, the effect of her father and brotherÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s influence is obvious. HamletÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s lover, as Dusinberre suggests, is irrevocably ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"chained into femininity by PoloniusÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (306), a father to whom her chastity must be forever placed above all else. Indeed, Ophelia is inextricably implanted in a social structure that speaks of her virgi nity in monetary terms: Polonius warns his daughter to ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Tender yourself more dearlyÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (1.3.107) in her dealings with Hamlet. Under the strict influence of her father, Ophelia becomes little more than property, but more significantly has no chance or right to develop an individual capacity for reason apart from her father. Since her entire education under Polonius ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"is geared toplacing the reputation for chastity above even the virtue of truthfulnessÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Dusinberre 94), Ophelia effectively has ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"no moral sense of [her] ownÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Dusinberre 94). The right to her own sexuality and the right to her own judgments are both inextricably liked to Polonius. Thus, Ophelia must see the world in menÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s terms. She simply does not have the ability to reflect on her position in the social hierarchy instilled in her by her father, nor can she eve r have it: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Her reason has not been educated to exercise itself without his guidanceÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Dusinberre 94). Indeed, this femininity is so deeply ingrained in her that to expunge it completely, she must lose her reason; instead of succumbing to her father, she must succumb to madness.For Hedda, again, the influence of the social hierarchy in which she is trapped is more subtle. Unlike Ophelia, Hedda will and does question the motivations of those around her. IbsenÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s tragic female even seems to have a very villainous streak: she manipulates everyone around her, with inconsequential social incidents or larger, destructive actions. When Hedda wishes to talk with Mrs. Elvsted alone, she merely prods Tesman to write a letter. Always deferential, he complies, and to a questioning Mrs. Elvsted Hedda replies, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"DidnÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™t you see that I wanted him out of the way?ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒ ‚€? (Ibsen 227). Later, when speaking alone with Judge Brack, Hedda admits to other little games: referring to her ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"little run-inÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (242) with Aunt Julie, she reveals that she had purposely meant to fluster TesmanÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s old aunt: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"SheÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™d put her hat down there on that chair (Looks at him smiling.) and I pretended I thought it was the maidÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™sÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Ibsen 242). Hedda appears to be very content with the joke, until Judge Brack pauses to question her motives. A change of mood occurs: she nervously replies, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Oh, you know ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ these thing just come over me like that and I canÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™t resist themI canÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™t explain it, even to myselfÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (242). Hedda knows that she isnÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™t happy, that something is la cking in her life, yet she canÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™t turn to herself and explain it. She is supposed to be relieved that she is married, having, as she says, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"danced myself outÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (239) by the age of twenty-nine. Nonetheless, she must revert to manipulative games (ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"What in GodÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s name am I to do with myself?ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (237)) to satisfy a need for control simply because she cannot control her own life. To Hedda, her existence is wrapped up in the social structure that she feels she needs to uphold. Essentially, as Bradbrook asserts in her discussion on Hedda as a stage character, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Hedda has neither self-awareness nor responsibility Although she is once or twice seen alone, there is nothing in the play that could be called a soliloquy from herÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (qtd. Lyon 79).Thus, while Hamlet may soliloquize all he wants about action and in act ion, Hedda must conform to the dictates of her social structure. Ironically, as Bradbrook points out, Hedda is a character for whom we have no inner monologue: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"she is shown entirely in actionÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (qtd. Lyon 79). Yet because she is so embedded in the hierarchy of which she is a part, she cannot consciously take action, and she simply attributes her need to play control games, like with Aunt Julie, to other causes: she sighs to Brack, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"I often think I only have one talentboring the life right out of meÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (244). While Hedda, indoctrinated in her social beliefs, thinks that boredom is a cause, it actually is merely a symptom of the lack of control that she feels. Indeed, even the fact the Hedda must use this type of speech indicates that, as Charles Lyons argues in his socio-linguistic analysis of IbsenÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s dialogue, HeddaÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s language ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€š €ÂÂÅ"is the language of the oppressedÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (21). In a world of male-dictated expectations and social structures, Hedda, like Ophelia, has no real control over her own life or decisions.As Hedda remarks to Tesman, however, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"there is always a way outÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Ibsen 256). Unlike the men who surround them, though, Ophelia and Hedda are trapped in a social structure that will not allow them to truly realize its full effects nor react without harsh reprimand or, what Hedda fears most, scandal. Thus, while HeddaÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s comment is true, both female characters are left with little choice. As Dusinberre asserts, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Polonius allows Ophelia no identity independent of his rule, a condition which makes her incapable of coping with a world in which he has no partÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (94). Upon her fatherÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s murder, then, Ophelia must escape into madness and her co nsequent suicide: Polonius has left her no other option. PoloniusÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™ warning to his daughter that HamletÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"will is not his ownÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (1.3.17) rings strangely false: while Hamlet may freely ponder the existential decision of life or death, Ophelia has no such luxury. Her only way to free herself of her fatherÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s grasp, her only course for true action, is what Dusinberre calls her ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"revolt of insanityÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (261). Thus, when Claudius laments, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Poor Ophelia / Divided from herself and her fair judgmentÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (4.5.84-85), ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"the irony lies in the fact that she was never allowed to have any judgmentÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (Dusinberre 94). A different but comparable scenario applies to Hedda. Consumed by her need for control, but for lack of any better outlet, she must con stantly turn away from taking hold of her own life and instead strive to change the life of a man. In Tesman, she is hopeless ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ she is convinced that there is no greatness in him. Thus, by the end of the drama, her need for power over something, since it cannot be herself, has reached a fever pitch. She finds an opportunity for action that she could never find in her husband when a devastated Lovborg converses with her about his manuscript. Lovborg, in his despair, asserts that he only wants to ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"put an end to it allÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (272). Hedda, snatching one of her pistols, gives it to him as a souvenir, imploring him, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Do it beautifully, Eilert Lovborg. Promise me thatÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (272). Even when LovborgÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s suicide is openly reported, Hedda, relieved by such ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"action,ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? comments, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"IÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã⠀šÃ‚â„¢m saying that here, in this ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ there is beautyÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (280). To Hedda, no greater relief can come from a true action; more significantly, the only true action and release that she now understands is taking oneÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s own life, as she asserts, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"This act of Eilert LovborgÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ thereÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s a sense of liberation in itÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (283). Thus, when Brack threatens to implicate her in LovborgÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s death, Hedda immediately sees no other way out: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"IÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™d rather dieÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (284). Like Ophelia, who is forced into madness, Hedda is effectively forced into suicide: the lack of control becomes too much, and the only true action she understands is death. Even after asserting, upon HeddaÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s death, that ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚Š"people donÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™t do such thingsÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (286) (an oft-repeated phrase of HeddaÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s, ingraining her into her social structure), there still seems to be an echo of HeddaÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s only truly liberating words: ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Finally ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ an actionÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? (280).Though their two characters vary greatly, ShakespeareÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s Ophelia and IbsenÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s Hedda Gabler are both inevitably trapped together simply by the fact that they are female. Both Ophelia and Hedda are highly influenced by the men that surround them ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€ Ophelia directly and overtly by her brother and father, and Hedda by the overarching social figures of father and husband. Because of the expectations of these male figures, neither Ophelia nor Hedda can transcend the social structure created for them. Ophelia, with no real sense of reason or judgment, must rely completely on her father; and Hedda, though sensing her lack of control, can only detect the symptoms of her imposed social hierarchy, and seek to control others rather than herself. Inevitably, the power structures that restrict both these women are the ones that eventually leave them no other choice but to drastically expunge the expectations placed upon them: Ophelia casts off her fatherÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s judgment through descent into madness and suicide, while Hedda seeks true action and control in taking her own life. For Hedda and Ophelia, ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"to be or not to beÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? never really was the question; since both women were never truly allowed to exist independently from the beginning, their only choice in the end lay in madness and death.Works CitedBrown, John Russell. ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Representing Sexuality in ShakespeareÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s Plays.ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? Shakespeare and Sexuality. E d. Catherine Alexander and Stanley Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Dusinberre, Juliet. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. New York: St. MartinÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚™s Press, 1996.Ibsen, Henrik. ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€Ã‚ÂÅ"Hedda Gabler.ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒâ€šÃ‚€? Four Major Plays. Trans. Rick Davis and Brian Johnston. Lyme, New Hampshire: Smith and Krause, 1995.Lyons, Charles R. Hedda Gabler: Gender, Role and World. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1991.Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Harold Jenkins. London: The Arden Shakespeare, Thomson Learning, 2001.