Discussions: 'Literature reveals that hatred is often rooted in fear'

A Dolls House and Paradise Lost
Just ideas, may be wrong or half baked but I really wanted to try and answer this even though my texts may not be the best.
For a form of hatred to be rooted in fear, hatred must be the outward expression of this underlying fear. Additionally, for this fear to exist it must be essentially grounded in a sense of possiblity - it must possible to become the source of the fear, often through some kind of moral failing - who decides what is a "moral failing"? Hegemonic patriarchal society. Hatred is the performance that is put on to condemn behaviours that are not accepted within society, the fear is essentially the potential consequence of being caught doing behaviours and/or actions not permitted by society. Hatred is effectively the antithesis of "true" love, for to love something would be to accept it unconditionally, yet if hatred is the outward expression of fear then an entire worldview is affected by these conditions.

So there are effectively 2 types of fear: fear of acceptance and fear of consequence (got there in the end).
In "A Dolls House" Nora and Krogstadt both experience significant self-hatred after having commited acts that go against what society deems as "moral" (well I also guess legal as well since they broke the law but point still stands methinks), yet what is interesting is that their hatred does not stem from a deep moral obligation to adhere to society's logic and definitions of morality. This is seen in Nora's flippant dissmisal of the "law" as "very stupid" corroborating this idea of her not being driven by this socieital morality. In Nora's logic, her actions are moral and justified as they are at ther core altustistic, so her self-hatred cannot come from guilt if she truely does not believe she did anything wrong. Instead both Krogstadt and Nora are driven to suicidal ideation, with both considering throwing themselves in "cold, black water" because of the fear of social and interpersonal consequence of their respective actions. The "consequence" for Krogstadt being fear of the effects on his reputation and employment at a more societal level and his children at an interpersonal level. This manifest in a hatred of Torvald from Krogstadt who states that he will "never forgive him" as Torvald was the cause of him losing his job at the bank. Krogstadt's hatred only disperses as he reconnects with Mrs Linde who intially left him due to monetary and reputational reasons -> this underlying reputational fear is dismantled in a way as he is able to find genuine connection outside of these restrictive confines (eh). In a way it could be seen that Nora's "consequence" is her fear of the effect her transgression will had on her marriage. Torvald's affinity towards aesthetics and beauty is super prevelent in the text, and his hatred of all things that do not fall into this definition of beauty even more so. Through his treatment of Nora, constantly using diminutive nicknames such as "songbird" and describing her features in reductive ways (ie "pretty eyes [and] deliecate little hands" -> china doll(?)) Nora is stripped of agency yes but she also becomes an embodiment of perfection in Torvalds eyes. Even when she dances the Tarantella in an erratic way, not to Torvald's taste necessarily as he remarks it was "more [realistic] than was aesthically necesary" he reaborbs what is clearly Nora's penultimate rebellion back into his aesthetic perfection. On the converse, he hates anything ugly, even Rank says it! "Helmer's a sensitive chap, and I know how he hates anything ugly". In Nora's request for Torvald to not open any letters she says "I don't want anything ugly to come between us till it's all over." Even when Torvald opens the letter that announces Dr Rank's eventual demise, he does not let himself linger, "An ugliness has come between us: thoughts of death and dissolution." then he moves ON!? Torvald's hatred of what is aestheticaly unpleasing is undoubtably rooted in fear as to him ugliness is synonmous with disorder. He is a member of the burgeoning Norwegian middle class of the mid-late 19th Century, the newness of this economic station is omething he guards jealously. He cannot let Krogstadt be employed once again, as he has, in Torvald's eyes - the voice of hegemonic sociey - "[poisoned] his home", "morally destroyed" himself. Through this, Torvald almost becomes a voice of Kantian deontology where adherence to rules is at odds with the consequentialist Nora who instead takes on Mill's contemporary ideas about an action being justified is it ultimately leads to a positive outcome. and ive lost my idea so going backwards:

Torvald
Fear = consequences of disorder/imperfection -> reputational ruin
Hate = towards others who display any of those traits which to Torvald manifest as "ugliness"

Nora
Fear = consquence of her deciet -> a marriage where Torvald takes "responsibility" (didnt really explain it fully but the repeated motif - word really - of a "miracle" is one used constantly by Nora to describe her biggest fear and deepest desire)-> equal partnership. Her fear was not in Torvald not accepting her sacrifice, if you read the last scene you will see that she immediately cries out "you will not suffer for my sake". Her fear was that Torvald would go through reputational ruin for her, which is not her fear, but as she recognises how important that is for him as an attentive 19th century wife, her desire for equal partnership is at odds with his obsession with perfection. She was willing to subdue her own desires for his sake, when she realises he is unwilling to do the same that is when she changes, with even the stage directions of that final scene even describing her "expression growning [cold]".
fear of acceptancing her own agency -> didnt explain this one either, sorry
Hate = Towards herself as she has put her marriage in a position where it is unable to continue as it were

and I am tired now, but yh, how could I refine these very bad scrambled ideas into some points of comparison hypothetically