Introduction
Creating a title is a challenging aspect of fiction writing, as this element is supposed to preview the work’s essence accurately, which is difficult to achieve with plays that simultaneously explore multiple themes. David Auburn’s 2001 play titled Proof offers an interesting research subject. This argumentative paper seeks to analyze the piece’s title and how “proof” works in the play, addressing these components’ contributions to the meaning of Auburn’s text. Focusing on the title as the topic, the paper posits that Proof’s title links proof to unattainable expectations, biases, evidence of mental strength, and a symbol of trust, thus adding greater meaning to the play.
Meaning of the Proof Play’s Title
One of the title’s meanings is literal, but a proof also acts as an abstract image related to an embodiment of the beauty and perfection of actual knowledge. Based on my prior journaling experiences, figurative meanings in titles are not uncommon. In mathematics and math philosophy, the proof is understood as a justification demonstrating that some conclusions are logically guaranteed (Czocher & Weber, 2020).
Auburn (2001) adds a new dimension to it as Catherine admires “beautiful mathematics” and mentions “elegant/perfect proofs and proofs like music” that her mentally challenged father hoped to produce (p. 8). Based on these words, a proof is flawless knowledge that features perfect internal harmony and helps the human mind reconsider the mysteries of life and existence. Being associated with this nearly unattainable level of knowledge requires a person to meet the strictest criteria, which is seen in Catherine’s case.
To continue, the title hints at the biased community’s expectation of perfect evidence to admit that a woman could have invented a new mathematical perspective. In Act 2, Catherine is anticipated to prove her authorship even without looking at her “forty pages long” book (Auburn, 2001, p. 16). Catherine’s conversation with Claire and Hal could be interpreted as an interrogation, with a proof working as a heightened standard that female scientists are supposed to meet to confirm their relation to professional communities. In anger, Catherine mentions that complex mathematical proof is not “a muffin recipe,” implying that her contributions are severely understated (Auburn, 2001, p. 16).
Seemingly, as a woman claiming she can make discoveries, Catherine is supposed to recollect every word in the book without visual clues, just to be considered its author. This scene resembles a typical situation of gatekeeping in which women with traditionally male hobbies receive many manipulative questions and requests to name every aspect of the topic. Therefore, the play’s title previews the woman’s struggle to prove her right to be taken seriously.
The title of Proof can also be regarded as a reference to the main character’s need to prove her mental strength by withstanding accusations and maintaining her sense of reality. In the play, a proof and its interpretation test Catherine’s insistence and amenability to suggestion. Catherine constantly encounters new objections; when she argues that the handwriting is hers, Hal immediately diminishes this factor’s importance and claims that her father “could have dictated it to her” (Auburn, 2001, p. 16). This scene reveals that Catherine should accept that nothing she says would be considered substantial evidence.
Catherine acknowledges that “living in this [her dad’s] house” has become her actual education (Auburn, 2001, p. 17). In this manner, with every new instance of psychological pressure, Hal challenges Catherine to prove the viability of her story and the origins of her work to herself. As a renowned genius’s daughter, she could be tricked into thinking that none of her work actually belongs to her, but she successfully survives the test. The firmness of her understanding of reality is, therefore, proven.
Furthermore, the title’s multidimensionality and how a proof works in the play add greater meaning to Proof by developing the theme of betrayed trust. Regarding the “so what” question, the play teaches the audience to exercise caution in sharing information concerning their achievements and aspirations. After a scandal, Catherine reveals that she wanted Hal “to be the first to see it [proof]” (Auburn, 2001, p. 16).
In this sense, the act of presenting a proof is a manifestation of deep trust. The latter is ruined almost immediately, as showing the work that Catherine has completed elicits unexpectedly negative responses, such as attempts to challenge her trustworthiness, sanity, and sense of reality. For the protagonist, presenting her work might be equivalent to opening her heart and proving her firm belief in others’ ability to act justly, understand her, and give her due recognition for her achievements. Under these circumstances, it is unsurprising that every objection to the authorship claim is perceived as a personal attack and betrayal.
Conclusion
Conclusively, David Auburn’s choice in naming the play transforms the strict meaning of a proof in mathematics into a complex term that covers the peculiarities of interpersonal and intrapersonal human relationships. The title can be understood as a reference to moral categories, such as the proof of trust, and a person’s ability to defend their comprehension of reality. Proving the right to be considered a valid participant in some conversations despite prejudice is another interpretation. Together, these meanings make the play an extremely intriguing literary piece.
References
Auburn, D. (2001). Proof. Web.
Czocher, J. A., & Weber, K. (2020). Proof as a cluster category. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 51(1), 50-74. Web.