Both Ibsen and Zola believed strongly in portraying their characters and works from a realistic perspective. Zola founded the naturalist movement in fiction and shared the same general perspective on society as Ibsen, who was the first of a new generation of modern naturalistic playwrights. In both Therese Raquin and A Doll's House, the supposed central position of Christianity in 19th-century European society is indirectly subverted through subtle suggestions about its irrelevance, or lack of importance, in the characters' lives. Due to the already morally controversial nature of both Ibsen's work and Zola's novel, thanks to their subversion of traditional gender roles, an obvious criticism of the Church or normative religious opinion in the 19th century would have led both writers in difficult situations. Thus, through the use of indirect but carefully targeted references, both Ibsen and Zola allude to Christianity as an empty institution, serving merely as a specious social value, which in practice is largely ignored. Zola, hailing from Catholic France, portrays the Church as an impersonal, mechanical tyranny that looms in the background of his characters' lives. Ibsen, hailing from Protestant Norway, takes a more direct but discreet approach, purposely setting his play around Christmas, while his characters only mention the materialistic aspect of the holiday. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay At the beginning of Ibsen's play, an argument occurs between Nora, the main character, and her husband, Torvald, over how much money should be spent on buying gifts. (Act I, page 10) While he asks for economy, she is eager to spend. Both characters see the exchange of gifts on Christmas Day as a family and social obligation, the basis of which is the spending of money, not the observance of a religious event. Similarly, Zola depicts the Church as a place not intended for divine worship, but rather frequented only when necessary for events such as marriage. When Therese and Laurent marry in church, their conduct is professional, their “quiet and modest” behavior (chapter 20, page 153) is “noted with approval” (chapter 20, page 153). It's hard not to see the irony of this, considering that their marriage was made possible thanks to Camille's murder. Both Zola and Ibsen were self-proclaimed "naturalists" (observers of nature) and atheists and placed themselves in the same category as Darwin and other eminent scientists. However, living in 19th-century Europe, both authors had to diplomatically convey their renegade beliefs. The idea of ​​Christianity as an obsolete institution is reinforced by the two writers' representation of religious and moral feelings as something mechanical and impersonal. Neither Therese nor Laurent feels any real guilt or remorse for the cardinal "sins" they have committed, which include violating the commandments regarding lusting after your neighbor's wife and committing adultery, not to mention murder. Zola takes pains to make it clear that all they care about is not getting caught. As for Nora, she feels like a contaminated, sinful woman, unfit to be a mother. Yet the “crime” she committed was a selfless and seemingly “Christian” act, borrowing money illegally and thus risking her own safety to save her husband's life. Is Torvald ready to demonstrate "Christian" forgiveness when he finds out? Not at all, he judges and condemns his wife for her self-sacrifice. In the endin A Doll's House, when Nora makes clear her intention to leave her home due to her total lack of gratitude or sympathy for her sacrifice for him, Torvald acidly asks her if she has "no religion, no ethics, no sense of duty." ” (Act III, page 77). He links religion to social obligations, defining it as a duty rather than an act of faith or love. Religion, for him, is just a set of social rules that he never thought of questioning together with his own moral and religious hypocrisy. Nora later comments (almost sarcastically) "miracles don't happen every day, God knows" (Act 3, Page 84), in reference to her diminished hope or Helmer's support for her sacrifice on her behalf. After she just said she doesn't understand religion, this gives the comment an almost mocking tone. Zola reflects this type of irony in his description of Madame Raquin's situation after her paralysis. The use of opposites insinuates the unbalanced and contradictory nature of divine worship; Madame Raquin's face is depicted as "with loose flesh and a grimace" (chapter 26, page 204), but amidst this ugliness, her eyes are of "heavenly beauty" (chapter 26, page 204). Furthermore, the lower part of his face was described as “bleak and colorless” (Chapter 26, Page 204), while the upper part was filled with “divine radiance” (Chapter 26, Page 204). Zola associates pious spiritual beauty with physical grotesqueness, as if the two went hand in hand. Advancing this point comes Zola's most obvious attack on religion, where even the purest and most devout character becomes sour and distrustful, thinking that if he could, he would "curse God." This becomes increasingly bitter due to His “deception” and culminates in a simple yet revolutionary statement; “God was evil” (chapter 26, page 206). Thus, when Madame Raquin opens up to reality, she sees through the facade the true emptiness of the Church. Ibsen's attack on the emptiness of religious values ​​is further strengthened when Nora rightly responds to Helmer's accusations of impiety and sinfulness: "I don't know what (religion) is" (Act 3, Page 83), explaining that she only knows what the priests said about it He says, “told us that religion was this, and that, and the other” (Act 3, Page 83), his very diction indicates the overbearing, mechanical nature of the church. Helmer responds that this dissent from conventional gender roles, as established by religious authority, occurs because she "does not understand the society in which (she) lives" (Act 3, page 84). like the Catholic Church in Zola's France, it is a statutory institution, a dominant power that commands rather than leads and is largely ignored or misunderstood. This is the exact opposite of what Christian spirituality was originally supposed to be: an assumed faith as a matter of personal conscience, rather than as a machine for enforcing social conformity. Ibsen depicts his tormented protagonist as a truly honest character who neither understands nor approves of religion as she was taught, but has simply pretended all her life. Zola, on the other hand, subverts religion in a different, more sporadic way. In this way, the constant use of God's name in vain continually reinforces the main characters' contempt for religious morality. Whenever Camille's murder is directly mentioned, Therese exclaims, “Oh God! Oh God!” (Chapter 28/29, page 218/229) as a sort of empty reflection. This notion is amplified throughout the rest of the novel as neither Therese nor Laurent ever considers the supposed divine consequences of murder for their souls. Only when they feel overwhelmed by the fear of.