Critical Response on the Play Proof by David Auburn Essay

Proof, Pulitzer Prize-winning play by David Auburn, is the story of a family where mathematics and madness run together. This is a play that, besides winning many awards, has also been critically acclaimed by several reviewers and critics including Bayer, Philip Fisher, Gerald L. Alexanderson, and others. There have been numerous themes in the play that are discussed over and over. This play, which chronicles the life and efforts of two of the eminent mathematicians also gives us evidence of how genius and madness can be related. “Genius and madness. How close the two are! — at least in the imaginations of poets and playwrights, screenwriters, and the occasional novelist” (Auburn. 2005). The play deals with the genius persons of the world and it relates genius convincingly with the world of madness. The reviews and commentaries of the play Proof concentrate mainly on this relation. The main concern of the playwright seems to be to explore the characters and their activities to find a link between genius and madness. The question that interests the readers is whether it is possible to inherit both genius and madness. The play is most notable for its treatment of the mathematical genius and madness in parallel with the life and genius of real-life mathematicians especially John Forbes Nash Jr. Viewing the play Proof through the lens of Nash would emphasize the relation between genius and madness. We can understand that there is a close relation between genius and madness both in fictional life and in the real life. This relation is brought out by the reviews of many eminent critics.

Let us have a judicious understanding of some of the secondary materials of the play Proof and find their main arguments about the play. The most important resource material to consider in finding the relation between genius and madness as well as the play and life is the critical review by Bryan Aubrey published in Drama for Students. In the essay, Aubrey makes it clear that the life story of John Forbes Nash Jr. is most closely linked to Proof. It explores the life of Nash and his mathematical genius. Nash “seemed destined to become one of the greatest mathematicians in the history of the discipline.” (Bryan Aubrey, Critical Essay on Proof, in Drama for Students, Thomson Gale, 2005) However, at his thirty, “his behavior, which had always been eccentric, became bizarre and irrational.” (Bryan Aubrey, Critical Essay on Proof, in Drama for Students, Thomson Gale, 2005) Then the development of schizophrenia in Nash, which is “a severe mental disorder that distorts thinking and perception” (Bryan Aubrey, Critical Essay on Proof, in Drama for Students, Thomson Gale, 2005) The interest of the reviewer is to bring out the parallels between real life of Nash and the fictional life of Robert. The review is critical in finding the relation between genius and madness in both these figures.

After making a clear note regarding the mental illness of Nash, Aubrey goes on to make the essential relation between the real-life example of genius and the fictional example through the character of Robert, whom the writer terms “Nash-like figure.” “Although the play does not mention the exact nature of Robert’s illness, the hallucinations and delusions he suffered from make it clear that he, like the real−life Nash, was schizophrenic.” (Bryan Aubrey, Critical Essay on Proof, in Drama for Students, Thomson Gale, 2005) Aubrey succeeds in finding the answers to the question of whether the insanity of the real-life figure, as well as that of the fictional figure, are related to their genius. Scientific research of what makes the relation between the two is carried out which is almost convincing. Aubrey emphasizes his point by considering the relation between genius and madness as inherited by the next generation. Thus, in his view, “Catherine is right to be concerned, since expert opinion considers that although the cause of schizophrenia is unknown, there is a genetic factor in the disease.” (Bryan Aubrey, Critical Essay on Proof, in Drama for Students, Thomson Gale, 2005) It is also proved by the life of Nash whose son John Charles Nash was a mathematician and a schizophrenic himself. The genius in real life is not inherited but schizophrenia may be. “So for Catherine in Proof to inherit both Robert’s genius and his mental illness would be a very unlikely event in real life, although of course, as Proof shows, it can be turned into excellent drama.” (Bryan Aubrey, Critical Essay on Proof, in Drama for Students, Thomson Gale, 2005). Thus, the review makes extensive research on the relation between genius and madness.

We may find a different but constructive view of the play in Philip Fisher’s review of Proof. The article is commendable as it aims to provide one the best pictures of what the playwright meant in relating the two important themes of the play, i.e. madness and genius. “Proof is a relative rarity, a scientifically based play that explores the very close relationship between madness and genius. It relates the story of Robert, a mathematical prodigy who is spent by 22 but has already revolutionized his field twice by that time. Unfortunately, he follows the route of so many prodigious geniuses – to eventual madness.” (Auburn 2002). The review skillfully brings out the inheritance of genius and madness of Robert by his daughter Catherine. Accordingly, she “seems to have inherited both her father’s brain… and his tendency towards insanity.” (Auburn 2002). The focus of the reviewer, here, is to logically connect the concept of genius with that of madness. As is evident from the play, the mathematical genius and his daughter are haunted by mental illness. When the father becomes mentally weak, Catherine devotes her life in service of him from whose abundant mathematical talents she inherited her share. They are later united in the way they share insanity as well. The review, thus, is an important contribution in understanding the basic concepts of genius and madness in the play.

Another of the most noticeable reviews of the play Proof is the article ‘Osserman Interviews David Auburn, author of Proof’ by Gerald L. Alexanderson. The article begins with the recognition that the play Proof is an enormous success and the interview with the playwright Auburn conducted by Osserman at Berkeley is the basis of the article. The role of the play in finding an apt place for the playwright along with celebrated dramatists like Brecht or Stoppard is identified at the outset. As the interview made clear, the article claims that Auburn was not interested to write a play focusing on the life of a mathematician. “He started out by being interested in the question of whether mental illness, as well as talent, can be inherited — the mathematical connections came later.” (Alexanderson, 2007). As the play proves it, both genius and mental illness can be inherited and the life and intellectual faculty of the character Catherine best proves it. She has inherited from her father Robert, not the intellectual talents of being an originally potential mathematician, but turning the life to a mentally challenged or frail person as well. The mathematical genius that Catherine occupied is the same faculty that her father was noted for. In addition, we also find the insanity of her father is carried over to her life too. The relationship between the father and the daughter can be observed as one molded by strong mutual affection with certain loose-ends in between. Catherine was ready to spend several years at home caring for the mentally ill father.

We may also note that there are other accounts on the play Proof that is commendable like the Theater Review of Proof reviewed by Dave Bayer, a professor of mathematics at Barnard College. The review introduces Robert as “a University of Chicago mathematician of startling originality in his youth who soon fell prey to bouts of mental illness interspersed with spells of clarity in which he struggled to reestablish his research” (Bayer). Thus it right away introduces the theme of madness and genius as apparent in the play. Though Robert is the main agent of this relation, the review also focuses on the character of Catherine with almost all the traces of genius of her father and is presented as one who “may have a bit of her father’s delusional madness.” Thus, in the very opening of the review, we get a clear picture of the relation between madness and genius. The review is particularly remarkable when it makes specific comments about the madness of the mathematical genius. “Robert’s madness is not the romanticized genius treading the thin line with insanity of popular legend, but rather a deceptive normality masking a tragic loss of ability to distinguish reality from intruding delusions.” (Bayer) The playwright, in the reviewer’s opinion, plays with the expectation of the audience and seems not to challenge the notion that mathematical genius and mental illness are a natural pairing. He also comments that the play does not extrapolate from the circumstances of the mathematical family. “Psychosis,” comments Bayer “is a rare, but unfortunately not too rare, condition.” According to him what is rarer is the subject of the play. The review, in short, provides us with a useful outlook onto the relationship between genius and madness in the play which, in the opinion of Bayer, is “a love letter to mathematics” (Bayer).

Thus, we can conclude from the review that it agrees with the view provided by the earlier analysis in stating that there is an obvious relation between genius and madness. However, unlike the previous commentary, this does not focus on the possibility of the relation between the two concepts. Rather the review by Bayer explains the relation between the concepts of genius and madness as a natural extension of the major themes of the play. Bayer goes on to repudiate the popular notion about madness and mathematical genius and their relation to each other.

In Bayer’s review, we make the inference that there is a possible connection between the mathematical genius and mental illness as is clear from the characters of Robert and Catherine. However, this does not try to make a relation between the mathematicians who are geniuses and “the other.” It is a misconception, in the view of the review, to make madness and mathematics run together. “The play paints a giant red target as bait for this audience preconception by making mathematics and madness run together in this particular family, but it is in fact Claire who adopts the role of “the other” on this stage of mathematicians” (Bayer). This is an interesting perception to consider. Accordingly, there is a much lesser relation between the mathematical family and the concept of madness. But, the relation between genius and madness is very much evident, as we have already discussed, in the characters of Robert and Catherine.

The complete review‘s Review is yet another useful, though not scholarly, piece that establishes the relation between genius and madness in the play Proof. The review introduces the much gifted of the mathematical talents one “certified, another close to certifiable: apparently the expected percentage.” And the commentary makes a clear relationship between this genius and madness. “Mental disease is a tough (though apparently extremely tempting) nut to tackle” (Auburn. 2005). The analysis tells about the mental frailty of the mathematical genius Robert and the fear of his daughter Catherine who is not in her mental stability. The worry she has is that she would wind up just like her father.

As we gather from this review on Proof, there is a conspicuous relation between genius and madness. A proper analysis of the two characters of Robert and Catherine is enough to illustrate the point. They are characters who show immense genius in the area concerned, i.e. mathematics. There are no other characters in the play who can claim this intellectual genius. Yet, they suffer the maximum misery caused by mental illness. Both the father mathematician and daughter genius are united by their intellectual faculty and mental weakness. The view that we can create at the end of this discussion is that there is an undeniable relationship between the performance of the people and their mental faculty. Review after review we see the claim of the importance of this relationship. The theme of madness runs in parallel with that of creative genius. “Auburn’s initial approach to Proof was the premise that mental illness, as well as talent, can be inherited.” (Atley). This is clear from the inheritance of both genius and mental illness of the father by Catherine. Thus, the critical responses that are attempted in the play Proof can never ignore to make the essential relatedness of genius with mental illness as we understand from the play and its commentaries. That is the reason why the scholarly analyses that are discussed in this paper emphasize the important and most evident connection between the two.

Works Cited

1. Auburn, David. Proof. The complete reviews. 2005. Web.
2. Bayer, Dave. Proof. Theater Review. Notices of the AMS. V. 47. N. 9. 2007. Web.
3. Atley, Kathy De. [Culturalevents] PROOF by David Auburn. 2007.
4. Auburn, David et al. Proof. The British Theatre Guide. 2002.
5. Alexanderson, Gerald L. Osserman Interviews David Auburn, author of Proof. MAA online. The Mathematical Association of America. 2007.
6. Aubrey, Bryan. Critical Essay on Proof, in Drama for Students, Thomson Gale, 2005.