Critique of An Enemy of the People- Title

GENERAL CRITIQUE OF THE PLAY, AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE
It is quite a debatable point to determine whether a literary work is to be considered great or not. However, various critics have termed An Enemy of the People as one of the greatest plays. It has not escaped their notice that the play transcends time to not only entertain and educate its audience in the 19th century, but also in the present.

 The ability of the author to address universal themes such as true democracy, conflicts among others has made him a literally giant classified with and only comparable to such others as Sophocles, Shakespeare and Bertolt Bretch. More often than not however, other authors have tried to address universal themes such as Ibsen addresses to no avail. I would therefore like to associate the greatness of An Enemy of the People to Ibsen’s style. Ibsen, also considered to be the father of realism adopts a formidable style. He explored a new ground just as Sophocles and Shakespeare explored the tragedy, and Bertolt Bretch the epic theatre. Each of these in their time brought a revolution to the stage in a unique and memorable way acquiring a place among the great playwrights.

The title, An Enemy of the People is an ironical statement that presents to the audience an unforgettable paradox. Tracing the relationship of the protagonist and the antagonist to the society at different times, the audience is stuck by the irony at the end of it all. This successful use of irony may as well be said to have influenced Africa writers such as Francis Imbuga in writing Man of Kafira and even Chinua Achebe who wrote the novel A Man of the People. Also great in Ibsen’s style is his ability to manipulate symbols. In the play, symbolism is not consummated until Dr. Stockmann rises to the platform to address the crowd in act IV. His high-minded argument is not a little surprise to the audience in which he bombards them with one point after another like bombshells refusing at all cost to spare the dynamite! His success again in this area is not to be compared expect with George Orwell’s in his Animals Farm.

In an attempt to avoid a simplistic overgeneralization, it is also important to mention something about Ibsen’s characterization. Having been an actor, a stage director and nationality recognized playwright Ibsen was well acquainted with creation and illustration of character traits. He uses both other characters’ and the specific character’s words to reveal their true selves as well as using action in characterization He concentrates not in judging characters’ actions but in revealing them to the audience for the audience to make its own judgments.
Close critique of the play will demand that the critic does not just focus on the different aspect of the play individually, but in totality. One is required to intensively study the play with a view to capture the big picture and not the parts only. Again, it would be erroneous for a critic to try to analyze the whole play without considering the parts that constitute the whole.