play

I can see why Hal can be viewed as selfish because there hasnt been much time to mourn the death. However I can also see how it can be seen as a tribute to a man who was clearly very intelligent. He was convinced that no one else would be able to produce any type of mathematics like what was in those notebooks and he wanted others to be able to see and learn from them. I think that this argument really can go both ways depending on which way you looked at it. His daughter of course thought that it was completely self- absorbed to want to get money from her deceased fathers work and while I can see why she thought that- I dont really think that those were his true intenetions. I really do think that he wanted others to be able to admire the brillance that was portrayed on the pages.
I thought it was interesting how in the opening lines of the play, you have no idea that she is talking to her dead father. At first I thought that she was talking to her friend/boyfriend whom she lived with. After we learn that he is dead, it seems a bit more intriguing. The entire length of the play, she is trying to convince herself that she is not crazy but all the while talking to her dead fathers ghost. How sane is this? I do agree with her father that "you can not inherit" insanity but I dont agree with her own personal claim that she is not crazy.
But then that raises the question that was posed in the play itself which is- if you can consciously say that you are crazy, does the fact that you can recognize it negate the fact that you actually are? I think that sometimes everyone feels a bit crazy, and we are aware of it and voice this outloud but how many of us are actually really crazy?
I dont think that you can inherit insanity from someone. I have seen many instances where one or both of the parents were crazy and the child was not. If you are living with two crazy people, I can see how you could be strange- but theres a fine line between craziness and just being a little bit odd. I do think though that if she continues to segregate herself from society that she could possibly end up like her father- she could drive herself mad , but as far as her being "destined" to be just like him , I think is a far fetched idea.
I think that being able to portray a full situation simply by dialouge is talent and I as well would enjoy the opportunity to read the entire play. I would be curious to see how the entire thing plays out.
I think that the title of the play symbolizes what is Catherines internal conflict throughout the entire play. She is trying to proof/disprove that she is crazy. Is she crazy? Does the fact that she is talking to her dead father prove this? She is convinced that Hal is trying to steal things from her, seems to become paranoid, is this proof that she is crazy even though she turns out to be right? And i guess the most important question is.... what does being "crazy" actually entail?

play

I think the play might have been titled Proof because maybe the encounter with her father's ghost is proof that she might be crazy. It makes me think that because when her father is attempting to convince her that she is not crazy, he fails. I think he was trying to just make her feel better by not telling her that she might be in fact crazy. "You're sitting here. You're giving me advice. You bought me champagne." "yes." "which means..." "For you?" "Yes." "For you, Catherine, my daughter, who I love very much...It could be a bad sign." I like those lines of the play, because it reminds me of how our parents sometimes try to protect us from things that might hurt us. In this case, Robert was trying to protect his daughter by trying to convince her that she was not crazy. Robert knows that she feels depressed perhaps by the possibility that she might end up like her father, and i agree with earlier posts, that she almost resents him for it. I think in life also, we resent our parents for certain things, whether its physical traits, characteristal traits or the type of life we now live, or have lived. Wether resenting or parents is right or wrong, I don't think we can help it because we are humans but can only help cope with what we were given. Does anyone else view Hal as a selfish, suspicious character? After all the funeral hasn't even happened yet, and Hal is thinkinf of having his work published instead of mourning his death?

Proof

Just by reading a scene, it makes me want to read the whole book and even watch the movie. I think it’s a very interesting story. It manages to portrait the characters only through the way they speak and act, without any description. Also the dialogue is very active and it is able to capture the reader’s attention. I think the good thing about theater plays is that the dialogue makes the story more realistic because we know exactly what each character says so it is possible to recreate the scene as if it was happening in real life.

I really like how Catherine is portrayed in this scene. She seems to be very selfish and mean with her father and with Hal but somehow the reader is not repulsed by her character. I think there’s a deeper reason for her behavior. It is interesting that she has inherited her father’s skills in mathematics but it also seems that she has inherited her father’s insanity. Maybe she blames her father so much because she knows that she’s like him. I think the reason for her behavior may be her father’s death but she’s also kind of aware of her similarity with him and is afraid to end up like him. She never stops claiming that he’s crazy, “The problem is you are crazy!”, “There’s nothing up there. It’s garbage. (…) He was crazy. There’s no ideas. It’s like a monkey at a typewriter. A hundred and three notebooks full of bullshit.” This shows us that she’s trying to convince herself that she’s not crazy, that she’s not like her father. When she’s talking with Hal, she says “No. I’m not crazy”, the words “I’m” are in italics, which stresses the point that she doesn’t want to be like him.

Also in her imaginary conversation with her father, she expresses her fear of having inherited his insanity. Her father tells her: “There are all kinds of factors. It’s not simply something you inherit. Just because I went bughouse doesn’t mean you will.” I think she’s kind of stuck in her life because she thinks she’s going to end up like Robert, she can’t move on and be successful because of this. Her father has had a huge impact on her, she not only inherited his abilities but her depression and her fear of not being normal is also provoked by what happened to him. We also notice their similarities when Catherine says that his father talked to people who weren’t there or imagined that aliens were sending him codes, but Catherine is also imagining having conversations with his dead father.

I think that when her father says that it is a good sign that they can talk about Catherine’s problems he means that it is a good sign that she is able to recognize what she’s doing wrong. She is aware that she may be crazy, she knows it’s not normal having conversations with dead people. “Crazy people don’t sit around wondering if they’re nuts.” Which is what Catherine does all the time, sits around wondering if she’s like her father, if she’s going to have the same life. Therefore, she’s not crazy. Crazy people are just crazy, they don’t realize it. I think that further on in the story Catherine will be able to forget about his father’s illness and appreciate his talent, so she’ll be able to move on and be herself, not an image of her dead father’s flaws. At least that’s what I would like to happen next in the story, it would be kind of boring if she had the same life as her father.

Why do you think “Proof” was the title of this play? Do you think the biological inheritances will turn out to be stronger than Catherine's unique personality? Is she condemned to have the same destiny as her father?

responding to the play

I felt like the dialog moved fast which made it more affective. What was going on in the scene was very sad. Is Catherine crazy? does she have any hope of turning her life around? I think that after her fathers funeral she may finlay get it together. That last blow with Hal reality checked her. The whole time Catherine and Hal were arguing i was thinking she was completely out of line and selfish. It really pissed me off that she would not listen to a word that he was saying because he had a good point. She was only being pessimistic and not even thinking about her dead father. Obviously she loved him very much. Why wouldn't she want his work published, its what he would have wanted. I hope she apologizes to Hal in future scenes in the play. The dialog had a lot of emotion in it. I could really here each individual voice and see the looks on each persons face as they spoke. At first i thought she was sweet on Hal but maybe i am the only one who flirts with people by being mean, I like testing guys. After reading the untitled scene i think that it will help me grow to write dialog. I'm a little nervous because its hard to really connect with readers if your dialog is boring. I'm afraid my dialog will be boring.

Proof

The dialogue format is different from a short story, where the author describes and narrates, but it still draws the reader into the action. The only description comes in brief notes, so a lot depends on the actor (when it is performed), and on small sentence details (when it is read): question marks, exclamation points, ellipsis, italics, dashes, etc. These small details animate the dialogue, because they indicate how the characters are delivering their lines. For example, when Robert says to Catherine, "After midnight..." (pg. 5), the ellipsis helps get across that he is a father, that he is concerned about his daughter, that he wants to talk and waits for an answer. In a short story the author may directly describe the two characters, but that intrusion into the dialogue can be trimmed by punctuating effectively. When Catherine is on the phone with the police, her sentence is cut off with an em dash, and it stops the reader short, so that the dramatic moment is captured: "Yes, I'm at 5724 South—" (pg. 22). There's no need for a narrator to explain that she stopped short, it's already in the dialogue.

I thought the author kept the dialogue interesting by developing the characters. At first it seems that Catherine is just talking to her father on the porch, which might get boring after a while, but then we learn that he is actually dead, which gives her character and her dialogue a whole new direction. The same thing happens with Harold. Catherine accuses him of stealing, and she is proven wrong when she checks his bag. But we still don't know who he really is, whether he is trying to make himself famous by her father's work, or whether he is an innocent math teacher who respected his mentor. When the notebook falls out of his jacket, it's another surprise in the story, and his character appears to have selfish intentions. But then we learn why he has the notebook, and our previous questions about him are answered. These small moments of suspense and character development help the dialogue so that it has a purpose, and doesn't just seem like two people talking on a porch. The reader wants to continue reading the conversation because it adds up to something larger, a story.

If you had to guess about the rest of the play, do you think that Catherine is crazy herself, or is she just grieving?

Are These Actual; Miles?

This story was short and real. I liked the way it seemed like something that someone I knew went through. It was a realistic yet sad story.
The story seems as though Leo and Toni met by fate. They seemed to at one point be in love with getting everything they wanted if not with eachother. Leo was it seems in love with Toni from the beginnning. He bought children's encyclopedia's from her without even having children.
As the story progresses, it seems so obvious that Toni doesn't have respect for her husband. She teases him in such a way would break someones' heart that is in love with them to hear. She tell's him he's nothing and that he has no money and his credit is lousy. These things would kill a mans pride to hear from a woman he loves. She tries to act as though she means it jokingly, but to me it seems as though she is mad at him for the situations she helped them to be in. She is acting as though his opinion doesn't matter and doesn't take him seriously. She puts in the time and effort to dress up to sell the car and promises to call , but fails to do so until after its been hours after she was supposed to and at that, she continuously talks over him and cuts him off. She treats him as though he doesn't matter.
Leo is left to ponder what has become of his life. He has thoughts of suicide and I believe that becuse of the constant disrespect from his beloved and the fact that he feels worthless as a provider makes this seem like an alternative. He drinks heavily it seems to mask the pain and thoughts but can dismiss them from his clouded head. He is worried about his wife, but it wasn't so clear to me at first whether he wa worried about her saftey or that she was going to leave him for someone else.
I believe though that being in the situation he was in warrants him to be worried about those things when his wife is as Toni is. A superficial, materialistic, snob it seems. She tells him that she is on her way home only to stubble in intoxicated and ignorant at dawn. Leo struggles to stay in control eventhough his emotion would be fair in this case go off on her ass. She is however "so much" to him. She is impaortant ans the fact that he will start over on Monday and make it all right keeps him hanging on.
At the end of the story when he stop the man in the convertible, i wondered why he felt the need to explain about Monday. He wanted to prove something more that defend his pride it seemed. I would've expected more drama. The man asks "are these actual miles?" as though it was maybe too good to be true. Just like the deal it seems he has just gotten. A night with Leo's wife and a car for a steal of a price.
Leo's obvious obessionwith the car though is caught at the end mostly when he strips his wife of her clothes, and traces he stretchmarks with his fingers back and forth, thinking they are like roads. He remembers then the morning after they bought the car and it gleaming in the drive way from the sun.
I wish this story had a little more to it. I liked it alot. folled it well, but was disappointed with the ending. I think a bit more passion should have been invloved.

Are These Actual Miles?

I think that by using the title “Are these actual miles?” Raymond Carver wanted to stress on how important the convertible was for Leo and Toni. It makes us think about their past, the miles they rode on that car and everything they had lived together which is now gone with their bankruptcy. I like the fact that the title is an extract of the dialogue in the story: “Well, goodnight, the man says and coughs. Take it easy, hear? Monday, that’s right. Okay, then. He takes his foot off the brake, puts it on again after he has rolled back two or three feet. Hey, one question. Between friends, are these actual miles? The man waits, the clears his throat. Okay, look, it doesn’t matter either way, the man says. I have to go. Take it easy.”

Because Carver chose the title “Are these actual miles?” we know that the climax of the story is located at this point, in the dialogue between Leo and the man who bought the car. We can notice that the central theme of the story is Leo’s life and how desperate and lonely he feels. He is always abandoned by people who never take time to have a proper conversation. There’s a sense of rapidity and stress in the whole story.

First of all, the way that the story is written gives a sense of anxiety and pressure by listing action verbs one after another without stopping: “He circles the kitchen and goes back to the living room. He sits. He gets up. In the bathroom he brushes his teeth very carefully. The he uses dental floss. He washes his face and goes back to the kitchen” and so on.

Second, this sense of stress and anxiety is also shown on what we said before, the fact that Leo is always wanting to talk and wanting people to wait, not to hurry, to take time to explain things to him or to be with him. “I told you, she says. I have to go now. Wait, wait a minute, for Christ’s sake, he says. Did somebody buy the car or not? He had his checkbook out when I left, she says. I have to go now. I have to go to the bathroom. Wait! He yells. The line goes dead.” Also, Toni always hangs up first, without even saying goodbye or letting him finish his sentences.

It’s the same situation when Leo encounters the man who bought the car, the man is about to leave, but Leo needs to talk to him. “Wait! Leo calls and starts down the steps. (…) What is it that you want? The man says. Look, the man says, I have to go. No offense. I buy and sell cars, right? The lady left her makeup. She’s a fine lady, very refined. What is it?”. I think that this story may be portraying the American society because it shows how some business people act. There are a lot of people that are always hurried and stressed, walking on the street without caring about others. Maybe the fact that Leo wants everyone to wait, to relax for a while, is showing that people are anxious almost all the time. I did some research and found that Carver changed the title of the story; before being entitled “Are these actual miles?” the story was entitled “What is it?”, a part of the dialogue that also shows stress and anxiety, which is also focused on Leo’s feelings.

Why do you think the author changed the title form “What is it” to “Are these actual miles”?
Would there be a difference if the author hadn’t introduced Ernest Williams as a witness?