What do you think?
The Wild Duck & Hedda Gabler
English (translation)
Original Norwegian
Original Norwegian
1 pages, paper
First published January 1, 1977
About the author
Henrik Ibsen
2,471 books2,180 followersHenrik Johan Ibsen was a major Norwegian playwright largely responsible for the rise of modern realistic drama. He is often referred to as the "father of modern drama." Ibsen is held to be the greatest of Norwegian authors and one of the most important playwrights of all time, celebrated as a national symbol by Norwegians.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
Read
January 17, 2018Opening Ramblings
I could be surprised that this is the first time that I have read Ibsen, in my imagination I think occasionally that in terms of my social and political outlook that Ibsen is most or less where I am at, but this of course is the purest nonsense, I'm still back in those BC years, I haven't crossed the boundary to AD let alone reached 19th century Norway. Just as an example I read Mathematics without Fear and finally understood that the reason why I struggled with Maths in school - it was simply that my understanding of Mathematics is roughly equivalent to that of an Ancient Egyptian - laugh if you will, but we will see who laughs last when it comes to building a pyramid so as to spend eternity with Osiris and Isis.
Another introduction
While reading I cast about a bit in the empty depth of my mind to try and find some context for the two plays in this book, theatrical context, none of this particularly significant because I don't know Ibsen's immediate context - who he was in reaction too, who his heroes were, what kinds of audiences was he appealing to. I thought inevitably of Chekhov, my feeling was that he in Cherry Orchard and Sisters Three was thinking more in terms of groups in certain situations, what the Hell do we all do now that slavery is over, and oh my God our happiness is completely bound up with our Father's rank and status - help!, Ibsen to my mind seemed to be more interested in particular individuals in or at particular psychological crisis points, then I recall in secondary school having read a collection of G.B. Shaw plays which included Mrs Warren's Profession - essentially, boy meets girl, boy finds out that girl's mother owns a brothel, girl's mother says 'who are ya, some kinda weird pinko liberal? This is free trade, capitalism, I'm an entrepreneur', I guess the play had some kind of ending or resolution, I just don't remember it.
Anyway
I had seen on stage previously Little Eyolf,and A Doll's House (but not at the same time, I only go for traditional theatre -one show at a time, not different plays for different eyes and I had listened to Grieg's Peer Gynt suite and so I can report that I was completely unprepared for Hedda Gabler and only partially prepared for The Wild Ducks.
I was interested how keen Ibsen was to get close to unity of time, both in both plays the action is spread over a couple of days with maybe a few hours in between acts, I felt the stories maybe didn't work quite so well because of this, it might have felt more natural and believable if the revelations were spread out over time, but plainly that wasn't the effect Ibsen was interested in.
Both plays reminded me of the ancient Greek dramas I have read in my wasted youth, drama as a landmine - once somebody steps on it everybody's lives will be blown apart, the explosive power provided by the truths which socially it is convenient to deny. In such a compressed society the most dangerous thing is an innocent person, blithely asking questions, committed to truth and to skipping through mine fields, an Oedipus.
Of the two plays I was more moved by Wild Ducks in which a doctor character introduces the concepts of the life-lie - the lies we tell ourselves that make life bearable or even pleasant and the disease of Justicefever. The curious sickness which drives the infected to kick sleeping dogs into wakefulness. In the context of the play it is clear that the drives for this are not altruistic.
Die Wildente
Hedda Gabler a curious picture of a woman in a time and a place, utterly selfish and provided with a golden opportunity which she thinks will lead to her own peace and prosperity. She's wrong though in what she thinks.
More words would mean even more spoilers, I found these plays at first blunt then unsettling and haunting in a subtle way.
I could be surprised that this is the first time that I have read Ibsen, in my imagination I think occasionally that in terms of my social and political outlook that Ibsen is most or less where I am at, but this of course is the purest nonsense, I'm still back in those BC years, I haven't crossed the boundary to AD let alone reached 19th century Norway. Just as an example I read Mathematics without Fear and finally understood that the reason why I struggled with Maths in school - it was simply that my understanding of Mathematics is roughly equivalent to that of an Ancient Egyptian - laugh if you will, but we will see who laughs last when it comes to building a pyramid so as to spend eternity with Osiris and Isis.
Another introduction
While reading I cast about a bit in the empty depth of my mind to try and find some context for the two plays in this book, theatrical context, none of this particularly significant because I don't know Ibsen's immediate context - who he was in reaction too, who his heroes were, what kinds of audiences was he appealing to. I thought inevitably of Chekhov, my feeling was that he in Cherry Orchard and Sisters Three was thinking more in terms of groups in certain situations, what the Hell do we all do now that slavery is over, and oh my God our happiness is completely bound up with our Father's rank and status - help!, Ibsen to my mind seemed to be more interested in particular individuals in or at particular psychological crisis points, then I recall in secondary school having read a collection of G.B. Shaw plays which included Mrs Warren's Profession - essentially, boy meets girl, boy finds out that girl's mother owns a brothel, girl's mother says 'who are ya, some kinda weird pinko liberal? This is free trade, capitalism, I'm an entrepreneur', I guess the play had some kind of ending or resolution, I just don't remember it.
Anyway
I had seen on stage previously Little Eyolf,and A Doll's House (but not at the same time, I only go for traditional theatre -one show at a time, not different plays for different eyes and I had listened to Grieg's Peer Gynt suite and so I can report that I was completely unprepared for Hedda Gabler and only partially prepared for The Wild Ducks.
I was interested how keen Ibsen was to get close to unity of time, both in both plays the action is spread over a couple of days with maybe a few hours in between acts, I felt the stories maybe didn't work quite so well because of this, it might have felt more natural and believable if the revelations were spread out over time, but plainly that wasn't the effect Ibsen was interested in.
Both plays reminded me of the ancient Greek dramas I have read in my wasted youth, drama as a landmine - once somebody steps on it everybody's lives will be blown apart, the explosive power provided by the truths which socially it is convenient to deny. In such a compressed society the most dangerous thing is an innocent person, blithely asking questions, committed to truth and to skipping through mine fields, an Oedipus.
Of the two plays I was more moved by Wild Ducks in which a doctor character introduces the concepts of the life-lie - the lies we tell ourselves that make life bearable or even pleasant and the disease of Justicefever. The curious sickness which drives the infected to kick sleeping dogs into wakefulness. In the context of the play it is clear that the drives for this are not altruistic.
Die Wildente
Hedda Gabler a curious picture of a woman in a time and a place, utterly selfish and provided with a golden opportunity which she thinks will lead to her own peace and prosperity. She's wrong though in what she thinks.
More words would mean even more spoilers, I found these plays at first blunt then unsettling and haunting in a subtle way.
October 20, 2025
The Wild Duck by Henrik Ibsen
Extraordinary work
This is an exhilarating play.
Even if it does fit the paradigm which was written by Somerset Maugham, I did enjoy The Wild Duck very much.
There is a quandary, for I am not sure how to write about this work without giving in any details about the terrible events.
One way is to place a spoiler alert and then a potential reader is warned about anything he may find here that he does not already know.
The other tempting option is to go right ahead, since the audience might reach a grand total of 0 which then allows complete liberty to write whatever comes to mind.
Writing in itself requires a certain logic, frame of mind and obeisance of some rules…and this is part of the reason why it is recommended to write.
Having placed some words on a screen we get detached from the events described and that is soothing when bad things happened.
Furthermore, we can find explanations that are missing before we write.
Maugham wrote about Ibsen in less than spectacular, praising terms. He said that in all the Norwegian’s plays-
- A character comes to the room…opens the window and the air changes the events
Not in these words, but I guess I got the picture. And it might well apply for the Wild Duck, where Gregers Werle is the one who returns and immediately gets into conflict with his father – Hakon Werle.
Hjalmar Ekdal is a photographer married to Gina Ekdal and they have a daughter – Hedvig, or at least that is what we think up to a point.
And that point for me is beyond the end of the book, for I still do not know for sure who the father of the teenager is.
Gregers is the character who comes from outside, even if this is just the return of an insider, who comes back with a different perspective.
His father had helped Ekdal and his family, but the reasons he did that are becoming apparent and less humanitarian than they appeared at first.
Hakon Werle had been infatuated with Gina, while she had been working at his house as a housemaid.
The fact that Hjalmar got married was mentioned in a letter received by Gregers, but the latter is surprised to learn that the bride had worked in their home.
- Why did you not mention that Hjalmar got married to someone I knew, who has worked in our house? This is something suspicious.
Hjalmar finds out about this and this is when all hell breaks loose, one could probably say with some justification.
Upon finding that Hakon tried to have intimate relations and in the end managed to sleep with Gina, before they got married – Hjalmar gets mad.
He suspects that Hedvig is not his daughter:
- I will go away, I have no daughter
He says something of the kind, which breaks the heart of Hedvig. She does not know what to do and gets some stupid advice from Gregers.
The latter does prove to turn things upside down, exactly in the pattern described by Somerset Maugham.
The Werles have saved a wild duck, which gives the title of the play and is associated by Gregers with Hjalmar…I am not sure exactly why.
However, the brilliant idea was to …shoot the duck and offer it as a sacrifice of the most beloved being in the world- this way, Hedvig will show her father how much she loves him. I found this loathsome, even if once every five years I may eat some duck. Or is it ten years?
I will stop here and say that the play is fantastic.
Extraordinary work
This is an exhilarating play.
Even if it does fit the paradigm which was written by Somerset Maugham, I did enjoy The Wild Duck very much.
There is a quandary, for I am not sure how to write about this work without giving in any details about the terrible events.
One way is to place a spoiler alert and then a potential reader is warned about anything he may find here that he does not already know.
The other tempting option is to go right ahead, since the audience might reach a grand total of 0 which then allows complete liberty to write whatever comes to mind.
Writing in itself requires a certain logic, frame of mind and obeisance of some rules…and this is part of the reason why it is recommended to write.
Having placed some words on a screen we get detached from the events described and that is soothing when bad things happened.
Furthermore, we can find explanations that are missing before we write.
Maugham wrote about Ibsen in less than spectacular, praising terms. He said that in all the Norwegian’s plays-
- A character comes to the room…opens the window and the air changes the events
Not in these words, but I guess I got the picture. And it might well apply for the Wild Duck, where Gregers Werle is the one who returns and immediately gets into conflict with his father – Hakon Werle.
Hjalmar Ekdal is a photographer married to Gina Ekdal and they have a daughter – Hedvig, or at least that is what we think up to a point.
And that point for me is beyond the end of the book, for I still do not know for sure who the father of the teenager is.
Gregers is the character who comes from outside, even if this is just the return of an insider, who comes back with a different perspective.
His father had helped Ekdal and his family, but the reasons he did that are becoming apparent and less humanitarian than they appeared at first.
Hakon Werle had been infatuated with Gina, while she had been working at his house as a housemaid.
The fact that Hjalmar got married was mentioned in a letter received by Gregers, but the latter is surprised to learn that the bride had worked in their home.
- Why did you not mention that Hjalmar got married to someone I knew, who has worked in our house? This is something suspicious.
Hjalmar finds out about this and this is when all hell breaks loose, one could probably say with some justification.
Upon finding that Hakon tried to have intimate relations and in the end managed to sleep with Gina, before they got married – Hjalmar gets mad.
He suspects that Hedvig is not his daughter:
- I will go away, I have no daughter
He says something of the kind, which breaks the heart of Hedvig. She does not know what to do and gets some stupid advice from Gregers.
The latter does prove to turn things upside down, exactly in the pattern described by Somerset Maugham.
The Werles have saved a wild duck, which gives the title of the play and is associated by Gregers with Hjalmar…I am not sure exactly why.
However, the brilliant idea was to …shoot the duck and offer it as a sacrifice of the most beloved being in the world- this way, Hedvig will show her father how much she loves him. I found this loathsome, even if once every five years I may eat some duck. Or is it ten years?
I will stop here and say that the play is fantastic.
July 31, 2026
The Wild Duck: 3.5/5
Very entertaining as a story, but also a look into the past at the life of those in Norway in the 1890s, as passing as those descriptions may be. The symbolism in the Wild Duck feels endless. I found it intriguing the way many characters connect with the symbol of the wild duck in their own ways, but the double-edged blade of that effect is I also felt a little dissatisfied with the depth of connections each character had. If a symbol applies to everyone in a different way, then what does the symbol stand for on its own?
Fun read, interesting character dynamics, felt authentic to life at the time, but also felt like something an English teacher would have their class dissect.
Hedda Gabler: 4.5/5
I really enjoyed this play. It felt much more personally written than The Wild Duck, and by that I mean it felt as if Ibsen was writing with the intent to have the audience understand his specific vision. Each character was much more clearly an archetype of either an emotional complex he had, or an aspect of himself written as a out-of-body character, which made the read feel less metaphorically symbolic, but more directly reflective of Ibsen in real life. The Wild Duck felt like a reflection of society and people’s morals within it, but Hedda Gabler was clearly far more of a self-reflection. In the play, Hedda is his emotionally and sexually repressed self, Loevburg represents a long-gone, idealized version of himself in his youth, while George stands as a consideration of who he could have become, should he not have pursued writing as his passion.
Hedda is awesome.
Very entertaining as a story, but also a look into the past at the life of those in Norway in the 1890s, as passing as those descriptions may be. The symbolism in the Wild Duck feels endless. I found it intriguing the way many characters connect with the symbol of the wild duck in their own ways, but the double-edged blade of that effect is I also felt a little dissatisfied with the depth of connections each character had. If a symbol applies to everyone in a different way, then what does the symbol stand for on its own?
Fun read, interesting character dynamics, felt authentic to life at the time, but also felt like something an English teacher would have their class dissect.
Hedda Gabler: 4.5/5
I really enjoyed this play. It felt much more personally written than The Wild Duck, and by that I mean it felt as if Ibsen was writing with the intent to have the audience understand his specific vision. Each character was much more clearly an archetype of either an emotional complex he had, or an aspect of himself written as a out-of-body character, which made the read feel less metaphorically symbolic, but more directly reflective of Ibsen in real life. The Wild Duck felt like a reflection of society and people’s morals within it, but Hedda Gabler was clearly far more of a self-reflection. In the play, Hedda is his emotionally and sexually repressed self, Loevburg represents a long-gone, idealized version of himself in his youth, while George stands as a consideration of who he could have become, should he not have pursued writing as his passion.
Hedda is awesome.
October 21, 2015
Hace unos años leí la obra completa de Henrik Ibsen en edición Aguilar, forrado en cuero, papel arroz, un tomo increíble que posiblemente sea uno de los libros que más aprecio de mi biblioteca. Entre las historias de vikingos, las épicas en verso que desgraciadamente no puedo leer en su idioma original y los dramas realistas que son el plato principal, hay una obra que me quedó grabada El pato salvaje.
La historia se desarrolla alrededor de una idea, ¿se puede sostener la felicidad en una vida construida sobre una gran mentira? Básicamente, una familia vive feliz, con esperanzas de un futuro mejor, hasta que un viejo amigo vuelve de su retiro convencido de que tiene que contarles las mentiras sobre las que se cimentó su vida para que puedan reconstruir sus relaciones sobre fundaciones sólidas y reales. Obviamente, lo único que consigue es destruir la familia en nombre de ideales bajo los cuales no vive nadie.
Un poco más en la crítica de mi blog: SWR
La historia se desarrolla alrededor de una idea, ¿se puede sostener la felicidad en una vida construida sobre una gran mentira? Básicamente, una familia vive feliz, con esperanzas de un futuro mejor, hasta que un viejo amigo vuelve de su retiro convencido de que tiene que contarles las mentiras sobre las que se cimentó su vida para que puedan reconstruir sus relaciones sobre fundaciones sólidas y reales. Obviamente, lo único que consigue es destruir la familia en nombre de ideales bajo los cuales no vive nadie.
Un poco más en la crítica de mi blog: SWR
November 21, 2017
Full disclosure: I’m not a huge Ibsen fan. Every few years I reread his work in hopes of better appreciating it – because wow is he talented – but I just don’t click with him. There’s not any one thing I can point to and say “this is why I don’t enjoy this.” Nope. From an intellectual perspective, I respect the heck out of Ibsen. That he repeatedly courted controversy by writing complicated, unlikeable female characters in an era when female characters were usually little more than support for the men is fantastic (heck, even over a century later his characters are unusual).
I wish I enjoyed his work more than I do.
Taking the focus off of me: Michael Meyer does an excellent job with translating Ibsen into English, and if any versions are likely to make English speakers fans of Ibsen, these two will do it. For those looking to read Ibsen, the Michael Meyer versions of The Wild Duck and Hedda Gabler are the gold standard. Recommended.
I wish I enjoyed his work more than I do.
Taking the focus off of me: Michael Meyer does an excellent job with translating Ibsen into English, and if any versions are likely to make English speakers fans of Ibsen, these two will do it. For those looking to read Ibsen, the Michael Meyer versions of The Wild Duck and Hedda Gabler are the gold standard. Recommended.
June 16, 2016
I admit, I have no idea what to make of "The Wild Duck". What does the duck symbolize? Urgh, and the idiot preface is totally useless.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews