Throughout this Note, it has been said that The Wild Duck was a major departure from Ibsen's earlier style, particularly in the play's psychological realism, turn towards symbolic elements, and lack of focus on a singular social problem. What each of these things contributes to in the play, however, is a larger sense of the tragicomic—that is, the commingling of traditionally tragic and comic elements. To better understand exactly what this means in the context of the play, however, and in order to understand what differentiates tragicomedy from Ibsen's earlier style, we must first develop an understanding of tragicomedy itself.
In the history of drama, tragicomedy evolved twice—once during the Renaissance and once during the modern era. Within the former, Verna A. Foster notes that, while elements of tragedy and comedy were mingled (for example, as in Shakespeare's Measure for Measure), such mingling often produced a dominant comic aspect and an ending in which most difficulties were overcome. Even so, Foster argues, the endings of Renaissance tragicomedies tended to be ambiguous, subversive, and uncomfortable for audiences—an important feature that they share with their modern-day counterparts. Between the heights of Renaissance tragicomedy and modern tragicomedy, then, Foster also notes the rise of the drame, which originated in 18th-century France and eventually developed into the social drama of the 19th century. Such social dramas, which often focused on a single problem or social issue, are notably the form of drama which Ibsen focused on prior to his stylistic turn in The Wild Duck.
What, then, distinguishes the modern form of tragicomedy deployed by Ibsen in The Wild Duck? First, and perhaps chiefly, while social problems are present in the wild duck—for example, in the presentation of class dynamics and the social ostracism of Old Ekdal—the play, as mentioned, does not revolve around such problems: rather, it focuses intently on the everyday life of the Ekdal family, acquainting us intimately with their minor personal affairs, hopes, and fears. Second, as Foster notes, while drame and other plays that focus on social issues are primarily concerned with realism, modern tragicomedies are more focused on metaphysical questions. In The Wild Duck, for example, the symbolic parallels established between the duck and several of the main characters, as well as the symbolic correspondence between the garret and the "depths of the sea," allow the play to both comically deflate the realistic stakes of the drama while also throwing them into tragic relief by implicating more metaphysical questions and concerns (42). Third, Foster tells us that modern tragicomedy—much like its Renaissance counterpart and unlike the more modern drame—has distinct elements of self-referentiality and meta-theatricality that allow audiences to both distance themselves from and participate in the emotional lives of the drama's characters. These mixed emotional effects, then, produce a mixed sense of the tragic and the comic. Said well by George Bernard Shaw, the meta-theatrical tragicomedy of The Wild Duck allows audiences "To sit there getting deeper and deeper into that Ekdal home, and getting deeper and deeper into your own life all the time, until you forget that you are in a theatre; to look on with horror and pity at a profound tragedy, shaking with laughter all the time at an irresistible comedy."
In sum, modern tragicomedies are noted for their ambiguity, turn towards the metaphysical, incorporation of psychological details, meta-theatrical distancing, and focus on the small dramas and events of the everyday. In The Wild Duck, such elements truly abound, beyond even what is mentioned above. In terms of ambiguity, note that the play's ending produces two key ambiguities—the question of Hedvig's suicide and the question of her paternity. Such ambiguities, along with Hedvig's correspondence to the wild duck and her childlike innocence, then thrust the play firmly into the psychological and metaphysical realms. Hedvig's manipulation by Gregers throughout the play also solidifies the centrality of the psychological in the play. In terms of meta-theatrical elements, Foster directs us to characters like Hialmar and Old Ekdal—whose role as sympathetic characters is completely undercut by their general confusion and unawareness of the dramatic circumstances which surround them. Importantly here, too, one does well to remember Gregers and Relling, two characters who are presented in the play as the exact opposites of their true roles that are revealed gradually: Gregers, of course, starts off as the idealist protagonist who wants to enlighten a former friend but winds up a villain; Relling, for his part, begins as a drunken scoundrel but ends up being a stand-in for Ibsen and the play's raisonneur. Such moves both invite audience participation and buy-in to the dramatic form while also undercutting and destabilizing that very form. Finally, in terms of the small details of the everyday, note all the various little trinkets, materials, and conversation points discussed by characters in the play—these, of course, lend an element of veracity to the play which contravenes its comedic aspects and allows audience members to see the characters as relatable figures.
