It strikes me as appropriate that this one deal with ambiguity. The post below didn't quite lend itself to answers because I posed no question. Thank you Kailie and Randa for responding anyway.
Let's talk about ambiguity. Perhaps as it relates to the title, Proof. Or perhaps at it relates to madness. Or the ending. Address one concrete perhaps.
In order to fully address the ambiguity that permeates the play’s plot, we must explore the possibilities presented in its title. Throughout the story, each character searches for proof, though each pursues a different sense of the word. I believe that the title encompasses all of the potential interpretations; it is up to the reader to determine which of the word’s definitions is most pervasive. However, much like the uncertainty prominent in Chronicle of a Death Foretold, the enigma is not entirely resolved, leaving the reader wondering, even after the curtain falls.
ReplyDeleteMost obviously, the titular “proof” could refer to the mathematical meaning of the term. A demonstration justifying a theorem with steps that are assumed to be true, a mathematical proof corroborating a difficult formula could lead to the establishment of a wildly successful career for an unknown scholar in the field of mathematics. For a more seasoned disciple, such a prominent discovery could mean justification for the otherwise fruitless hours spent closely studying countless postulates in the attempt to produce a work free from error. Furthermore, it could guarantee that intellectual the widely-held respect of esteemed colleagues, as well as a prestigious place reserved in the annals of mathematic history. This underscores the importance of the discovery made by Hal: awarding credit to the appropriate individual, whether it is Catherine or Robert, could greatly impact the careers of both.
The weight that such a revelation carries broaches another aspect of the proof mentioned in the play’s legend. Because Hal, a student of Robert’s, maintains an intense affection for the mathematician, granting the former professor recognition for the difficult principle would be a fitting recompense for the mentor. However, as the student has also become involved with Catherine, neglecting to bestow the honor to the woman who claims to have penned the proof would mean the ultimate betrayal. Hal must acquire proof in order to allocate acclaim to the true author.
Another facet to the title’s possible meaning is Catherine’s continuous search for proof affirming that she, unlike her father, is entirely sane. After living with Robert for the stint of his illness, Catherine, who possesses the same calculating mind as the brilliant mathematician, grows to fear that she will suffer the same fate as her father. She is not the only character afraid that she may soon dissolve into delusion- Catherine’s sister Claire also bears a similar worry, suggesting that she begin to see a doctor as a precautionary measure. Therefore, Catherine must find proof in order to reassure herself, as well as others, of her sanity. Indeed, even in the quest for evidence indicating a sound mind, we find ambiguity. As concrete facts lend little substance for the insane, how would one establish unambiguous proof of one’s own sanity? It is up to the reader to determine the veracity behind this uncertainty, along with the other ambiguities presented in the play.
The novel, Proof, is one rife with uncertainty and ambiguity from scene 1, Act 1, to curtain call. The numerous and varied meanings carried within the title "proof" are all indubitably represented throughout the entirety of the novel. Though the word is most often associated with the definition in mathematical terms in this play, it is also, though more covertly, tied with Robert's madness and the perpetual need for Catherine, his daughter, to prove that she is not like him in that way, but is in fact mentally stable. This unvarying struggle for Catherine is complicated by the undeniable parallels between their mathematically intelligent minds present in their thought process and work.
ReplyDeleteThe period of time spent tending to her deranged father, Robert, set in a small yet persistent paranoia that fed this drive to prove to others such as Claire, who questions her mental state, as well as herself, sane. The ambiguity circumscribing herself promulgates the doubts that Hal and Claire have about Catherine being the valid writer of the to-be historic proof found in her locked drawer, strikingly similar to not only the thought processes but handwriting of Robert's. Because Catherine is so adamant on assuring them that she is not like her father and only exhibiting her true intelligence in occasional and always surprising retorts, the two are reluctant to believe Catherine's claim on authorship of the proof, in turn furthering her need to once again prove herself, yet in a different way this time.
Hal, infatuated with Catherine yet loyal to Robert, denies Catherine's trust and takes it upon himself to prove the true writer, an ambiguity that could potentially be detrimental to his career, to Catherine's future, and to their new and tumultuous relationship. Catherine and her father's sanity, the proof, and even the title of the script possess no intrinsic or objective qualities, fabricating the play to be an exceptionally ambiguous one until the last line where many unanswered questions still linger.
Ambiguous is the perfect adjective to describe Proof. The play is filled with ambiguous and sometimes confusing situations, even in the first scene where Catherine is having a casual conversation with her dead father. However, I think it would be most interesting to discuss ambiguity as it relates to the title. The title may seem simple and straightforward. After all, this is a play about a girl who writes a proof, but as all good titles do, this one has a little bit more to it. There is another definition of the word proof that applies to the play. This one word title is ambiguous because there are many definitions and connotations behind the word “proof.” As anyone who has taken high school geometry knows, a proof is a mathematical strategy in which logic is used to show that if one thing is known to be true, then another can be proven to be true. When I first looked at the title of the play, I assumed that this definition of the word “proof” would be the primary factor in the book, which it is for the most part. While Catherine’s proof certainly is a central part of the plot, I think another definition of the word proof is equally important. The word “proof” is also used more generally to describe evidence that verifies that something is true. This definition is applicable because Catherine must present proof to convince Hal and Claire that she was the true author of the journal. This occurred to me as I read scene two of act two. In this scene, Hal says to Catherine, “I’m just saying that there is no proof that you wrote this.” This line points out the central conflict in the story: whether or not Catherine wrote the proof. It is almost ironic that Catherine must present proof that she wrote the ground breaking proof, but she is proving much more than the fact that she authored the journal. In a sense, she is proving her worth as a mathematician and as a descendent of her father’s mathematical brilliance. Her father was convinced that she was talented enough to be a great mathematician, but she had to drop out of Northwestern in order to take care of him as his health declined. The proof in the journal that Catherine gives to Hal would be earth shattering to the mathematics world if it could be proven. Even Hal admits that he may not be able to follow it because it would have to be so complicated. Clearly, writing this proof was no easy feat, and the fact that Catherine had not even finished school proved that she has the potential to do amazing things in the world of mathematics. In other words, when Catherine proves that she did write what was in that journal, she is proving much more than that. She is proving that she is a talented mathematician and a worthy heir to her father’s brilliance.
ReplyDeleteTo be quite honest, I looked up the definition of ambiguity. An online dictionary defined ambiguity as, “doubtfulness or uncertainty as regards interpretation.” With this clarification, I then looked back to the question. With the title, I didn’t see much ambiguity. The title refers, in my opinion, back to the main subject of the book, the proof that was written by Catherine. Of course, one could also say no, of course the title refers to how Catherine had to try to find evidence that she did actually create the proof. During the play, there is quite harsh questioning of whether she in fact wrote it or not. The handwriting is similar, and the two other main characters question her intelligence as well. Catherine becomes quite resentful to their disbelief and does attempt to prove that the work is hers.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the “madness”, I could see it being quite ambiguous, in fact the most ambiguous part of the story. The very beginning scene involves Catherine hallucinating (at this point the reader doesn’t know that she is hallucinating) and speaking with her deceased (also unknown to the reader at this point) father. When one realizes that she is being delusional, the first thought is she is suffering either from schizophrenia or perhaps a strange way to deal with grief. The conversation she is having with her father lends one to believe that it could be schizophrenia or some other mental disorder that involves hallucinations. She is asking her father when he first started experiencing symptoms of whatever mental dieses he was suffering from. I view this at one type of madness, the suspicion of a mental disease. The second type would probably revolve around the actual story line. The romance that evolves between Catherine and Hal is rather unsuspecting, especially as the coy history between the two is relieved. The second mad part about the story line would have to be the relationship between Catherine and Claire. Claire, who abandoned her sister, now acts as if Catherine is a child who needs caring for.
I found the ending to be the least ambiguous. It is full of unsuspecting turns and twists, so yes there is some uncertainty to how the story would continue if it were real life. As Hal slowly pieces together that Catherine in fact wrote the proof, the romance continues to grow. Catherine’s sister, Claire, finally finds some peace and calms down. Hal and Catherine continue to talk as the story nears, even hinting towards Hal taking care of Claire and staying in the house. The story ends with the audience questioning their fate together, with all signs showing towards a positive end for them.
If I were allowed to only choose one word to describe this novel ambiguity is one of the first choices that comes to mind. From the first word until curtain call the play is rife with doubt. In the beginning Cathrine talks and ultimately receives a bottle of champagne from her father, yet unknown to the reader her father is dead. Upon learning the knowledge of her fathers funeral an air, a fog, of question and uncertainty falls about the novel.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one of the most ambiguous moments is the ending. We find Cathrine and Hal in the home of her deceased father agreeing to discuss the proof in which the author is supposedly Catharine. Many would argue this scene is the most certain part of the novel. Yet it seems a false sense of certainty has arisen. Cathrine has not concretely decided where she will live. If she decides, or has the power to decide, against New York will the house of her dead father still be sold? If it is not sold could she remain mentally stable within the walls of her home?
The title "Proof" seems to be a double edged sword. In the novel the mathematical proof is concrete; there is no doubt of its validity. Hal states several of his colleges had checked the proof for mistakes and found none. The uncertainty lies in the author of the proof. Claire is convinced Cathrine could not have written the proof, yet Cathrine is bent on convincing Hal she is in fact the author of it. The reader not being given any concrete, absolute truth is made to assume who the author may be. From the title until curtain call this novel emanates doubt and an uncertain ending.
The play Proof is extremely ambiguous throughout its duration. The reasoning behind the title is what seems to be the most ambiguous to me. Of course the controversial mathematical proof is present, but I wonder if Auburn meant something more. The proof that Hal finds in one of Robert's notebooks is very controversial because it a colossal discovery. No one in the known math world has worked out a proof for this complex theorem. Hal is sure that Robert unearthed this crucial find to the mathematical world, but there is one small problem. Catherine claims that she was the one who pulled her knowledge together and came up with the proof. So who does Hal believe it is? Robert is dead and therefore can no longer argue his case. Since Hal was previously one of Robert's students, he knew the way his handwriting looked. The proof seems to resemble Robert's handwriting greatly, but still Catherine claims she discovered the proof. At the point in the play, Robert could use some proof that Catherine was the one that discovered the proof. If no proof was uncovered on Catherine's behalf, the evidence pointed to the father created the proof.
ReplyDeleteMadness is also a very ambiguous aspect of the play. Is Catherine inheriting her father's mental illness? Why did she have to drop out of college to constantly take care of her father if she was smart enough to solve such a complicated mathematical theorem? Beginning with the opening scene of Catherine imagining she was with her father, the reader starts to feel a mental disconnect is present in her as well. The old saying of "there is short distance between genius and madness" seems almost untrue here. It seems untrue because these two characters, Robert and Catherine, seem to be mad due to their mental illnesses, but also genius in their math workings. The ambiguity between the meaning of the title and the madness theme in the play Proof is obviously present.
The title "Proof" presents heavy irony because ambiguity is big part of the play. There is ambiguity in whether Catherine is sane enough to function by herself, and also whether or not she is the actual author of the proof.
ReplyDeleteCatherine's saneness is questioned early in the novel when she has conversation with her deceased father as if he was alive and well, even though the reader does not know this at the time.T here is a fine line between genius and insanity, and Catherine is a perfect example. She is a mathematical genius, but it appears that all of her knowledge leads to her having a very smart, but very unstable mind.
Catherine's unstable mind also leads to more ambiguity in regards to her claim that she wrote the groundbreaking proof. This claim is already hard to believe because she did not even graduate college and the proof is written in her fathers handwriting, but add in the fact that she appears to have inherited her fathers mental illness, and there is a large amount of ambiguity in this claim.
Most of the irony in the title comes from the fact that Catherine is forced to prove that she wrote the proof. She is able to prove an extremely difficult mathematical theorem, but she is unable to prove that she is the author of said proof.
Ambiguity is an extremely common feeling throughout the reading of this play. There are many instances that may simply confuse the reader by no fault of their own, other than the story is simply vague. From the beginning it is easy to be confused by the conversation Catherine has with her father. First, the topic of craziness is addressed, with the explanation provided not making clear sense. Secondly, though, the fact that Catherine’s father was actually dead and that she was having a hallucination would very likely make the reader uncertain of what is going on.
ReplyDeleteEven earlier, though, ambiguity plays a prominent role. The title provides a situation to which no one can know the answer. It could stand for many things, and those may change as the story progresses. In the beginning of the play, proof is mainly referenced as a mathematical term. It does not seem like there is any other reason for the title, other than simply the fact that proofs were what Robert had devoted his life and time to.
Then, though, the conflict arrives of Catherine claiming to have written this newly discovered proof. It is inconceivable, at first, to both Claire and Hal that Catherine would have been able of such a feat. While she wills that she did it without help, they argue that there is no proof, and that there simply cannot be. Whatever idea they proposed to prove her story came with weaknesses, such as she could have merely dictated the proof from her dad or that it was impossible to tell whose handwriting it really was. This presents a problem in that Catherine really was the author, yet she was being forced to attempt to prove something that would be impossible to do. This causes the title’s meaning to become blurred, for it could deal with either of these instances.
There is also a sense of uncertainty that pervades the play on a larger scale. In many instances, the characters are uncertain of their actions or why things happen. No one knows why Robert had a short remission back into normalness, or why that remission had to come to an end. Catherine does not know if she trusts Hal again after he does not believe she wrote the new proof, and she also doesn’t know what she is going to do with her life. Claire does not know if her sister is sane or if she should come with her to New York and see doctors. Finally, Hal does not know if his career will ever work out, or if he will ever make a discovery even though he claims to be past his prime. Although there are ambiguous details in every story, it seems that these characters’ are referenced throughout a large majority of the book, and that none of them really have a sense of certainty at all about the answers to their problems or the choices they will make.
Ambiguity is being uncertain of something like a situation, word, or an expression. At the beginning of the play, Catherine is talking to her deceased father about her uncertainty of whether she is sane or not. She fears she has inherited more from her father than just his math skills. Her sister, Claire, also feels that Catherine has become mentally sick and questions whether a lot of the things Catherine tell her are real or not. For instants, When Catherine was explaining why she called the police the night before; her sister questioned her numerous times of who Hal was because she thinks that he and the break in was one of her hallucinations. The title, Proof, is more than a math term because it is also the harsh reality Catherine has to face. She needs proof to everything or what she says will be questioned. Her sister finds ambiguity in Catherine period. Catherine is ambiguity.
ReplyDeleteThe ambiguity for Catherine’s sanity doesn’t end there, in fact even Catherine’s veracity is questioned when she states that the “brilliant” notebook Hal found in her father’s drawer was her work. Hal believes that her father, Robert, had to have written the proof because Catherine hadn’t even graduated from college. How could she know more than him who had received a PHD in math? Catherine feels hurt that Hal, someone she trusted enough to let him see her work, doesn’t believe her. At the end, Hal comes to discover that her father couldn’t have written the proof and opens himself up to the idea that Catherine wrote it.
In my perspective, even the end of the play has some uncertainty. Sure, at the end of the play Hal believes that Catherine wrote the proof and that she is more than capable to take care of herself. I, as the reader of the play, find it hard to believe that she is sane and not a little crazy. The title of the play, Proof, is an antidote to ambiguity. If you have proof than there is no reason to be uncertain. I think Catherine didn’t want the ones she loved to need proof of her sanity but to believe her. We want people to believe us because it shows that they care and trust us. So, maybe the ending is showing something deeper by not giving proof. Is this a moral story? I don’t know but I like to believe Mr.Auburn meant it to be that way.
Having read this blog before this play, I kept a keen eye for instances of ambiguity. However, I did not find as instances as I had expected, but enough though to be one of the driving elements of the play, nicely paralleled with mystery and surprise, which thus provided an engaging, fresh read.
ReplyDeleteThe two main instances of ambiguity observed as many of my classmates have pointed out are: one, did Katherine write the proof or not and two, whether she is sane or not. These instances delve into the themes of the fine line (which is ambiguous) between genius and madness (in fact, we are not even told what Robert's illness is), and whether it is hereditary or not.
Other instances of ambiguity one could argue for are the characters themselves and the relationships between them. Katherine and Claire's relationship is volatile, but at times may seem loving. Claire is aloof to her condescending attitude towards Katherine and basically sees herself as self righteous by assuming herself to be Katie's future/present caretaker, meanwhile the reader is confused to what gives her the authority to think this way, especially with her drinking habits. Though their relationship may seem ambiguous this could just be your typical sibling relationship with tensions especially heightened due to the neglect of their friendship over the years. Another ambiguous relationship is Hal and Katherine. They begin to fall in love, yet when Katherine cements her trust in Hal by presenting the proof, he doesn't trust her. The ending shows Hal trying to recompense his actions, and thus leaves the viewer with an ambiguous situation: whether or not Katherine and Hals' relationship will work out in the future.
The way the author presents the story also augments the ambiguous nature of the play by his choice of scenes and omissions.
The title Proof creates a paradox in the theme of the book as the words "ambiguous" and "proof" are antonyms, and the proof itself turns out to be essential to the apex of the play. Very clever.
“The ambiguity of madness” struck me as a very interesting concept. It is true that while reading this play it was difficult to understand which elements of the plot were reality and which were fictional due to Catherin and Robert’s psychotic tendencies. Though in Proof the reader conjures up ideas of schizophrenia, the play Death of a Salesman follows along the same pattern of blurring the lines between actuality and fantasy. This theme of the ambiguity of their reality was brought on, in my opinion, by the inherent ambiguity of madness.
ReplyDeleteFor example, above I mentioned my own personal theory that Robert was suffering from some form of schizophrenia; however, the play never blatantly addresses his disease, always referring to it as his “illness” or his being “sick” or “nuts.” This seems like a trivial detail, but in reality there are many different forms of mental illness, all of which affect their victims differently and looking back at the play it strikes me as odd that none of the characters went into explicit detail of the mental state of Robert though I did not think it strange at the time. The fact that David Auburn decided not to address which specific illness Robert had added to the theme of ambiguity.
Another very important aspect of ambiguity in this play with regards to madness involves the reader’s incredibly unclear image of Catherine’s mental stability. In the first scene Catherine is found communicating with her dead father. This could be taken as an obvious sign of insanity, or of just intense grieving. The same can be said about Catherine’s tendency to stay in bed all day and speak to no one: insane, or sad? Then later in the play Catherine’s sister talks about how she has always been a little “like dad,” or, that is to say, a little crazy. However, it is hard to trust Claire’s judgment considering the negative light she is cast under throughout the play. The argument I present is that Catherine’s madness is not as straightforward as her fathers, that her sanity is ambiguous, furthering the theme of ambiguity even more.
Thru ought the play the mathematical proof and the many proofs the characters are searching for in life, mesh. The mathematical proof acts as a catalyst for the conflict between characters. When Catherine brings the mathematical proof to the attention of Hal the question of whether or not Robert wrote the proof or Catherine wrote it seeks an answer. In essence the answer will be proof as to whether or not Catherine is sane or not. The mathematical proof brings a more burning life question to the surface. Which brings me to my next observation that the situation in the play towards the end brings rise to the question of which is more important, the groundbreaking mathematical proof, or the relationships between a group of friends. The question of who wrote the proof threatens to destroy the couple of relationships that Catherine has since Robert is now dead. In the end it seems that the relationships prevail over the importance of the proof. This is what I believe to be the main point of the play, the relationships between loved ones is more important than any man made proof. The ambiguity of the proof helps to make it more of a mathematical revelation than just a math project. The ambiguity threatens to ruin a family but, when it seems that some one’s name is finally put onto the proof it is no threat at all.
ReplyDeleteAmbiguos is the perfect word to describe this novel. Throughout, the characters are trying to prove something. Catherine attempts to prove she wrote the proof and prove to others and even herself that she is not crazy. There are many questions in the book and the fact that the family can stay together is truly remarkable and shows that family can prevail over the biggest of obstacles.
ReplyDelete