The Theme of Differentiation Between Appearance and Reality in Tan's and Shakespeare's Works

Differentiation between appearance and reality has always been an underestimated struggle in regard to the human experience. Our understanding of many mental, social, and physical phenomena, hinge on the very basis of appearances that are presented to us. Unfortunately, situations that present misleading appearances are common, promoting uncertainty and confusion when discerning appearance from reality. In fact, more often than not, we comply to the reality of our presumptions, rather than that of actualities.

On account of the universality of this struggle, its implications offer interesting thematic purpose in various literary works. One example of such, is what many consider to be William Shakespeare’s greatest tragedy, King Lear, which depicts a ruler’s gradual submission to madness, as prompted by the deception and betrayal of his children. Another work that makes use of this theme is Amy Tan’s contemporary novel, The Joy Luck Club, which tells of four Chinese-American daughters who struggle to accept the aspects of their Chinese heritage, much to the frustration of their immigrant mothers. Taken together, these literary pieces bear notable commonalities in the development of appearance versus reality as a theme, as they both present conflict born from flawed character-character perceptions, contain subplots that are complementary to the main plot which in turn emphasize the theme, and successfully illustrate the significance and impact of distinguishing reality from appearance.

Reading the two pieces with attention to thematic conflict, it is interesting that both Shakespeare and Tan choose to present misjudgement of reality as a source of character conflict, while remaining distinct by approaching the causes of skewed realities in different ways. In the case of King Lear, as the trigger to his downfall, the first scene consists of immediate conflict derived from Lear’s inaccurate perception of reality. Deluded by the praise and adoration of his daughters Regan and Goneril, Lear is immediately blinded by anger and humiliation, as result of Cordelia’s unintentional challenge to his bloated hubris. Coupled with disowning Cordelia, Lear twists his own reality by latching onto the proclaimed love of his remaining daughters. In act three, Lear states, “The tempest in my mind / Doth from my senses take all feeling else / Save what beats there—filial ingratitude” (III.iv.13-15). This quote demonstrates Lear’s realization of the overwhelming error of his presumptions, and how his mistaking of appearance for reality fosters both the internal conflict he struggles with throughout the play, as well as the external conflicts brought on by his daughters.

Similarly, The Joy Luck Club poses conflict born out of misinterpretation, though for reasons that are unrelated to those in King Lear. A clear communication gap is established by the generational and cultural differences between each daughter and her mother. As such, inaccurate perceptions of parent and child are formed by both parties; maternal love combined with traditional values, predominantly translates into mildly oppressive constraint, and close mindedness. An example of this is evident in the passage “Rules of the Game,” in which Waverly Jong narrates her childhood, and reveals the clashing of heads between herself and her mother Lindo. While Lindo is extremely proud of her daughter's talent as a chess prodigy, she develops a tyrannical influence as she constantly gloats and helicopters her daughter, which hinders Waverly’s enjoyment of the sport. At the end of the chapter, Waverly reveals,“In my head, I saw a chessboard with sixty-four black and white squares. Opposite me was my opponent, two angry black slits. She wore a triumphant smile. ‘Strongest wind cannot be seen,’ she said” (Tan __). Describing her mother, this suggestion of Lindo’s role as an antagonist through Waverly’s eyes, shows how Lindo’s pride and care translate to negative traits, further alienating herself from her daughter, and resulting in conflict between the two.

Overall, both King Lear and The Joy Luck Club exemplify the ability of presumptions in prompting character conflict, whether internal or external. Conversely, the causes of these misinterpretations of reality are distinctive to each literary piece; in King Lear, Lear’s own rashness and pride are the culprits of what can be interpreted as unintended self-sabotage, whereas cultural and generational divides are the main offenders in The Joy Luck Club.

Another unique parallel between the works of Shakespeare and Tan, is their effective use of subplots throughout each piece, in attempt to complement the main plot and emphasize the theme of appearance versus reality. King Lear describes the tragedy of Gloucester alongside that of Lear, as the two venture the same fundamental plot. Gloucester is just as gullible and victim to hypocrisies, and his blind trust in Edmund becomes ironic once he loses his eyesight and learns the reality of things. Gloucester’s revelations, epitomized by the lines, “I stumbled when I saw. Full oft ’tis seen, / Our means secure us and our mere defects / Prove our commodities” (IV.i.22-23), describe how he “stumbled” in failing to recognize the truth, and as such, had to pay dire consequences for his ignorance. Comparably, Lear’s refusal to accept a truth that contradicted his pride, allowed his mind to be led to the brink of insanity. Both characters give in to their confirmation bias; Gloucester’s self-acknowledgment of his foolishness stresses that of Lear’s, providing thematic development, as well as establishing the symbol of blindness, and foreshadowing Lear’s imminent turning point in the play.

A different implementation of subplot is illustrated in The Joy Luck Club, specifically its unconventional use of interwoven subplots to relay the recurrent theme of appearance versus reality. Jumping between setting and character each chapter, while the stories depict the distinct lives of each narrator, they contribute to the underlying conflicts and themes of the novel as a whole. This is first demonstrated at the start of the book, when June establishes the central connection between the mother-daughter pairs, by recognizing the prevalent fear of the mothers. She states, “And then it occurs to me. They are frightened. In me, they see their own daughters, just as ignorant” (Tan __). This understanding marks June’s encompassing of the 15 successive stories The Joy Luck Club unites, and lays the foundation to June’s “connecting voice,” that is able to transcend the various conflicts that emerge from the presumptuous beliefs of both mothers and daughters. June’s revelation presents her as the bridge between the two groups, unlike the other characters at the start of the novel, who are unable to discern the contrastingly different realities of their counterparts.

It is important to recognize that the converging point of these literary works is their use of subplot in strengthening the theme of appearance versus reality. However, unlike in King Lear, the relation between each of the subplots in The Joy Luck Club is their focus on furthering the reader’s understanding of each character, as well as drawing comparisons between their realities and perceptions. It’s utilisation of 16 stories is distinct from King Lear, whose key purpose in subplot is to emphasize the main plot, hence their heavy intertwining. At the same time, King Lear’s subplot has major roles in accentuating other literary devices throughout the play, such as symbolism and foreshadowing.

As with most literary plotlines, the characters of King Lear and The Joy Luck Club reach conclusive conflict resolutions by the end of their journeys. In particular, both stories convey the role and impact of acknowledging reality rather than appearances. King Lear communicates this twice, when Lear and Gloucester come to terms with reality, and are immediately plagued with regret. Gloucester, who eventually dies from the happiness of having been with Edgar before his passing, was tormented solely by his assumed inability to receive forgiveness. Likewise, Lear’s first words upon recognizing Cordelia in act four reveal his own remorse. He states, “If you have poison for me, I will drink it. / I know you do not love me, for your sisters / Have, as I do remember, done me wrong. / You have some cause; they have not” (IV.vii.71-74). By insisting that his death would be justified, Lear displays the extremity of his shame in having brought Cordelia suffering, and acknowledges her right to wish him harm. Her forgiveness ultimately pulls Lear from the brink of insanity, and the final act gives readers a glimpse of the wisdom that Lear is capable of wielding, when he submits to imprisonment with Cordelia in preference of continuing to fight.

In the same manner, Tan’s greatest accomplishment in writing The Joy Luck Club is not showing readers the ability of mothers and daughters in hurting one another, but instead their capability to forgive. As the lives of the daughters progress, the importance in understanding others to see reality grows prominent. June, who was previously established as the bridge between the conflicting mothers and daughters in the novel, recalls an argument between her nine-year-old self and her mother Suyuan. Provoked by the overwhelming iron-fist of her mother in her quest for June’s greatness, June refused to continue pursuing piano, and screamed that she wished she were dead, like the children Suyuan had lost in China. This “unspeakable betrayal” (Tan __) was never mentioned again, and as June grows older, she looks back on her failures in shame, grasping that her mother was not her enemy, but rather her biggest supporter. By the age of 30, June receives a piano from her mother as a gift, and states, “I saw the offer as a sign of forgiveness, a tremendous burden removed” (Tan __). The piano is interpreted as a symbol of understanding between June and Suyuan; in hindsight, they are able to have a better understanding of one another, see the reality of the other’s actions, and overcome the struggles and barriers that separate them.

Whereas King Lear deals with a father’s heartbreaking realization of reality through spoken truth, The Joy Luck Club utilizes the power of actions to exhibit clarity to its characters. Although recognizing reality marks the end of the tragedy of King Lear, Tan’s novel relates it to the start of a new beginning. Despite these differences, both pieces fall back on using parent-child bonds to emphasize the impact of distinguishing appearances from reality. The message that parent-child relationships are defined by more than simply blood, is tied to characters coming to terms with reality, which brings them closer together, and demonstrates an irrevocable connection.

Discerning appearance from reality is something done on a daily basis, whether it’s scrolling through the latest Instagram feed, or watching a magician vanish doves with a simple “alakazam.” Continuously reinforced by daily experiences, we make the naive assumption that our internal views are perfectly mapped in the outside world. However, as exemplified by King Lear and The Joy Luck Club, this is not always the case. The two literary pieces prove this in their thematic developments of appearance versus reality, which draw parallels in conflict origins, utilization of subplot, and conveying the impact of recognizing reality from appearance. Besides this, both stories insinuate the flexibility of our realities — that our perceptions of the world, though relatively stable, are not static. Our awareness of the things around us remains adaptive, based on the transient factors we are able to grasp; our limited knowledge, our sense of confidence, our fears, and our desires. To put it simply, it’s as Albert Einstein once said: “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”