However, Nora’s reign of power doesn’t last very long and soon Krogstad begins to linguistically assert his authority over Nora by using interrogative sentences such as ‘She is a good friend of yours, is she not?’ At first Nora doesn’t submit to his taking authority and assumes an offended tenor in reply to his direct questions: ‘How dare you presume to cross-examine me…’ She begins to retaliate to his attempt at asserting control, in a rather childish manner. Nora makes use of the impersonal pronoun ‘one’ four times during the same turn of speech. The pronoun ‘one’ was and to an extent still is generally considered as a social marker by the upper classes, consequently Nora is trying to, metaphorically speaking push Krogstad beneath her, by making sure that he understands his socially inferior status. Nora also boasts about here superiority to Krogstad by appropriating words from Torvald, such as ‘influence’. Krogstad’s over politeness is becoming rather peculiar at this stage and suggests some sinister undertone or motive to his words. When he utters: ‘Mrs. Helmer, will you have the kindness to use your influence on my behalf?’ it can be argued that the tone of Krogstad’s voice becomes sarcastic, as the meaning of his words juxtaposes the over-polite manner in which he says them.
The word ‘influence’, taken from the male field of language occurs very often during the duologue between Nora and Krogstad. At first, Nora uses this word to boast about her social status and even to imply threats to Krogstad: ‘When one is in a humble position, Mr. Krogstad, one should think twice before offending someone who – […has influence?]’ However, not long after, Krogstad adopts this word and uses it against Nora: ‘There’s still time, and I’d advise you to use your influence to stop it.’ Krogstad is cleverly using Nora’s own statements against her, and in a way takes on the role of a prosecuting lawyer, springing his trap and hence forcing Nora to admit her crimes herself. The shift in power from Nora to Krogstad is complete when Krogstad makes use of imperative sentences such as: ‘Now listen to me, Mrs. Helmer.’ The formality with which Krogstad addresses Nora also increases to ‘Mrs. Helmer.’ In the same turn of speech, Krogstad’s sarcasm and use of emotive language in the line: ‘…I shall fight for my little job at the bank as I would fight for my life’ shows that he is no longer trying to restrain himself and putting up the false pretence of utter politeness.
Krogstad then proceeds to share with Nora his experience about the crime which he committed some years ago, and its effects on his life. Krogstad calls the crime an ‘indiscretion’ which is a euphemism. The reason for why he doesn’t want to use the word crime is because during the Victorian times, this would be very much a taboo subject and the people involved in the discourse, wouldn’t feel comfortable to talk about it as openly as in the present times. Krogstad’s overlap of Nora’s line: ‘I think I did hear something –’ shows how Ibsen uses features of spoken language in order to create realism in the duologue. Immediately after the overlap, Krogstad begins to confess the details of the ‘indiscretion’ which he committed. His confession in actual fact serves as more of a threat to Nora as she can end up in the same situation as Krogstad for the ‘white – collar crime’ of forgery which she has committed. Shortly after, Krogstad begins to make direct threats to Nora about telling her husband about the loan: ‘You say that because you don’t want to help me. But I have the means to make you.’
For Nora, the secret of the loan is evidently very important for her as shown in the line: ‘This secret that is my pride and my joy – that he [Torvald] should hear about it in such a filthy, beastly way…’ The use of the possessive adjective ‘my’ makes this statement very personal and the use of the intensifying adverbs ‘filthy’ and ‘beastly’ show that Nora is still dealing with the business matter as a child would do, rather than a mature adult.
The exchange which follows is of Krogstad taking on the role of a persecuting lawyer. He is the only one using interrogatory sentences, showing that he is in complete control. The whole time, Krogstad is trying to reach the subject of forgery; however he is doing it in such a way that Nora will say it for him. He asks ‘do you remember the date of your father’s death?’ and after she answers, he proceeds to reveal the fact that her father signed the loan papers three days after his death. The use of overlaps in this section of the duologue is noteworthy as it adds a sense of realism and further proves Krogstad to have the power as he is always taking his turn without allowing Nora to say much: ‘I don’t see – [Krogstad interrupts]’, ‘I don’t understand – [Krogstad interrupts]’. Nora becomes silent after the revelation about Krogstad’s knowledge of the forgery come to her. This is of great significance as the silence admits Nora’s guilt. However, this is still not enough to satisfy Krogstad. He wants everything to be crystal clear and all the facts to be laid out in front of him so he continues to interrogate Nora mercilessly. Krogstad indirect, oblique approach leads him to insinuate that there has been a forgery: ‘It’s the signature itself I’m wondering about. It is genuine, I suppose, Mrs Helmer? It was you father who wrote his name here?’ This type of approach is very effective dramatically as it slowly but surely draws the information out to the audience, creating suspense. Nora finally gives in and makes an admission of guilt to Krogstad, which is exactly what he has been expecting from the start of the duologue: ‘…It was I who wrote pappa’s name there.’
Krogstad goes back to telling Nora about the ‘indiscretion’ which he once committed; however he no longer uses a metaphor to describe it, but rather just calls it a ‘crime’. This liberation from the use of metaphors to cover up taboo subjects shows the progression in Krogstad’s and Nora’s relationship from being very childish to becoming more adult and mature. However, Nora is still not mature enough to understand that ‘The law does not concern itself with motives’ as Krogstad explains to her, but rather she thinks ‘Then the law must be very stupid’ which shows her naïve, feminine conception of the law. Just before Krogstad abandons the stage, he makes a threat which will daunt Nora until nearly the end of the play: ‘If I get thrown into the gutter for a second time, I shall take you with me.’
The change in the formality of the language from the start to the end of the play obvious, for example Krogstad says ‘Might I be so bold to ask’ at the beginning, and ‘Now listen to me, Mrs Helmer’ towards the end. This change is very significant as it shows the given characters’ relationship developing into a more a truthful, honest one where they can explain themselves without having to use implication, metaphors and false attempts at politeness.
