Validation/Prestige - Are they the Same?

The notion of literary catharsis is a common one -- the purging of emotion in literature (including film). This might be the point where, at the end of a film, the audience stands and cheers, applauds, yells, hoots, cries. According to Aristotle, this was a key ingredient to the ending of a story.

Of course, in the last few decades, the notion of "validation" has appeared. This is a psychological term, used to refer a confirmation that perhaps deals with one's ego. For example, purchasing a new television might "require" friends to come by and compliment it (validation -- good choice). Or a choice made might "become" the right choice if someone with experience and knowledge supports the choice. Or, the most common, students who are graded look for good comments on paper -- validation of their work.

In literature, validation takes on a different aspect. Typically, the reader/viewer is not interactive. Instead, she is passive in the art form. This means that the common notion of validation does work, unless the book or film directly speaks to the reader (perhaps by name). Here is the catch. Through literary devices, readers feel sympathy for protagonists. This connects them (0ften) to a character in the story. It allows the reader to invest interest, emotion, hope. In essence, this sympathy links the reader and the protagonist. Therefore, the protagonist's successes are the reader's successes. Basically, it is living vicariously through the literary figures life. The hero of a story does what the reader wants/desires to be done. This is a strong connection; one that brings happiness or sadness at the end of a tale.

So where does validation come in? If a reader (or viewer) is strongly connected with the protagonist, then any success in the story becomes a shared success by the reader/viewer -- perhaps provoking an emotional response. It just so happens, in the film The Prestige, the person collecting tickets at the theater said that "this was a great film." I wondered what the connection between the ticket taker and the magicians in the film was, and why the strong link.

One theory is that the film provides a form of validation for the audience. If the world is known by everyone (including the viewer) to be commonplace -- solid through and through, then, as stated in the film, isn't the audience looking for the illusion, even though we know it is just an illusion? Maybe the validation in this film isn't strong catharsis, but the completion of the magic trick; the changing for the world from the mundane to the magical. After all, a magical world does sound like a better place, one with hope, mysteries, possibilities not limited by society.

I suppose the irony here is that a film that reveals that most of what we view, in relationships, in entertainment, in business, in everyday life is somewhat lifeless is the same film that announces that the audience needs illusion (say the superstructure of society; the fabrication of social constructions such as "social prestige--" recognition among peers, validation -- is the film that delivers these things, all the while explaining that they are not real. It could be argued (quoting the film) that "no one cares about the man in the box," (read as society); rather, everyone cares about the man out front; the one taking the bow; the one who stands out, who is socially validation.

Now there is a concept. Society is a cultural construction, and artificial thing, and yet, members of society need its validation to place us in the proper stratum/status of society. Hmmm.
So what was it that the ticket taker liked so much about the film. Was there personal validation – hope of a world that wasn’t based on greed, competition, anger, hatred (as displayed in the film). Or maybe she was simply tired after a long day of standing on her feet.