Appearance and Reality in "Tartuffe" and "Monkey"

Authors Avatar

Atyia Williams

English 2850

October 16, 2002

                              Appearance and Reality in “Tartuffe” and “Monkey”

                

        The short story “Monkey” by Wu Ch’eng-en and Candide, by Voltaire were written on different continents and written in different centuries.  Both works of literature have story lines that revolve around appearances. The characters in each work make assumptions based on the way things appear around them. In each work, however, the protagonaists learn that what appears to be true may not be reality.  Since each work was written in different contexts the value that each place of the material world is different. “Monkey” places value on the reality of the material world but the supernatural and the appearance of things is valued equally if not more in some cases. In Candide, however, it is clear that the material world holds the most value.  

        Both works of literature help its characters to gradually discover the reality of the situations they find themselves in.  They also help the reader to not only find the truth of the story but to also look for reality in the society in which they live.  By considering an example from each work it is easy to see the gradual discovery of reality in each story. It is also possible to see the value placed on reality and appearance in each story.

        When Monkey, Tripitaka and Pigsy first meet the newest member of their caravan, Sandy, he is described as a horrifying sea monster, “his hair was flaming red, his eyes were like two lanterns; at his neck were strung nine skull, and he carried a huge priest’s-staff (Norton38)”.  After battling what appears to all as a hindrance to their journey, Monkey is finally able to lure the monster out of the water.  The group is surprised to learn that this horrible looking monster is a former creature of the heavens.  

                                                                                

He is in fact a former “Marshal of the Hosts of Heaven” who made an embarrassing mistake one-day in heaven.  He was punished by being forced to live as a sea monster, eating everything that comes in his path.  Despite the fact that the group was at first wrong in assuming that he was a horrid monster of no important they continue to fight him, viewing him as a threat.  It is only after going to see the Bodhisattva that Monkey and the rest learn that Sandy, the sea monster is actually willing to help.

        The Bodhisattva makes an interesting point in this passage in that she says “If  only you had mentioned the fact that you had come from China to look for scriptures, you have found him very helpful (Norton p. 40)”.  It is obvious that Monkey and his friends do not say this to Sandy because they assume him to be a monster.  Since he appears to be such an imposing being they believe that they only way to deal with him is by fighting.  Earlier in the story Monkey and Tripitaka are only to happy to tell people who appear to be good that they are searching for scriptures.  When they are at Mr. Kao’s farm they introduce themselves as “a priest and his disciple have come, who are on their way to get scriptures in India…(Norton p. 30)”.  They only say this however, after Monkey says that he is “certain that good people live there (Norton p. 29)”. In the end Sandy, the monster, is proven to be a disciple of the Buddhist faith.  He agrees to carry his new master and disciples across the river and to help them on their journey.  

Join now!

        The incident with Sandy is one of many in “Monkey” in which appearances are completely deceiving.  The group of travelers does not seem to learn this lesson readily, however.  They continue to encounter situations that are similar to their experience with Sandy.  In fact after realizing that Sandy was not the unkind monster that they feared

                                                                                

Monkey admits that the unfortunate encounter with Sandy was a fault of their own. He says; “don’t scold him.  It is we who are to blame, for never having told him that we were going to get scripture (Norton p. 41)”. The ...

This is a preview of the whole essay