You arranged everything according to your own taste, and so I got the same tastes as you - or else I pretended to. I am really not quite sure which - I think sometimes the one and sometimes the other. 
 When her husband was ill, Nora borrowed money to pay for a trip to the coast. When an old friend returns and takes the lender's position at the bank, he threatens to reveal that Nora forged her father's signature to get the loan, an almost inconceivable notion considering Nora's childlike demeanor. 
 As a character, Nora is grating yet strangely human - she makes mistakes, but she tries to piece together how to atone for them. Though I disagree with (view spoiler)[her decision to abandon her children, I applaud her for standing up against a spouse invested primarily in himself. (hide spoiler)] 
 If you've ever been told how to think, you'll relate to Act III. Given the time period this was written in, it is startlingly forward-thinking: it proposes an equality between both men and women. (view spoiler)[It sets forth a good message - that women need to learn about themselves and society before settling down - and it's perfect for people jumping into marriage without learning how to be themselves first. However, I'm unsure how it would apply to the already married. Does the play advocate abandoning one's children? Is duty to oneself truly more important than other duties such as parenthood? Hm. (hide spoiler)] For the thought-provoking questions it offered, this play is a solid 3.5 for me.