In the fall of 1877, just after Ibsen had published his contemporary prose drama Pillars of Society, his fellow Norwegian writer Arne Garborg wrote this critical response in a weekly periodical:

Garborg's nationalist critique was essentially this: Ibsen cannot build something lasting for Norway because he can only pose questions and express doubts; he cannot come up with the constructive answers that distinguish truly great authors. By invoking this commonplace metaphor equating building with positive action (i.e., “builders of the nation”), Garborg taps into a long-standing discourse of architectural thought that enables his criticism of Ibsen's negativity. Ibsen, he implies, is a Master Razer, not a Master Builder. According to this seemingly inherently persuasive metaphorical system, consensus and positive social engagement (especially of the nationalist variety) resemble a construction project, while doubts and critiques are like demolition.

Granted, when Garborg gets past his initial complaint and actually reviews Pillars of Society in this article, he wonders if this new play might be different: “It is as if Ibsen were tired of all the tearing down now and wanted to try building instead.” In historical retrospect, those who know Ibsen's work might be surprised to find that in 1877, before writing any of the prose plays in which he would most famously devastate the “social edifice,” he had already developed a reputation among his Norwegian compatriots as a “razer.”