At our last class, Professor lightly hinted that I often overanalyze texts to find a deeper meaning that perhaps might not exist so I carried this with me in the reading of this text. Without the lecture as a precursor, this text was nearly incomprehensible with a familiarity necessary to understanding the setting of the novella. This novel had me making hypotheses as it was filled with unclear antecedents but ending them each with a question mark. Is the Kid a symbol for the panic the couples felt when trying to find the owner of the trenchcoat? or did it not have any significance and aimed solely to instill this uneasiness in the reader as well?
This novel had me incredibly anxious and watching over my shoulder with every passing chapter as the frantic, panicked moods of the characters were properly transported into the reader. Even when they would crack jokes during the dinner and speak on the Securitate, I felt uneasy as though I would be pinched if I were to breathe unevenly. As though I were there. My anxiety was validated when the trenchcoat revealed itself, and the characters obsess and breakdown over the appearance of this article of clothing, claimed by none. Dina, the host, decides to clear this anguish by taking the trenchcoat and wearing it herself, defining this undefined and unaffiliated symbol.
This novel speaks on the privilege upper-class citizens suppose they have in speaking on certain topics and humorously and lightly discussing their opinions. This privilege is stripped when they panic over something as simple as an unclaimed coat as a dinner party. To place this in a completely neutral setting, the overcoat would become an inside joke. A jacket spawned from who knows where. Yet due to the politically-charged environment and setting of the novella, something as simple and mundane as a coat can be cause for concern, dialogue review, and prolonged panic.
I acknowledge that I may overcomplicate my analyses of the course readings but I feel this novella requires that approach. Not necessarily as concluding points or to form an overall opinion, but to ask questions and ignite thought processes outside of the authorial intent. In Libya’s civil war, dinner parties and gathering were often filled with the similar awkward fog of dancing around words in fear of the walls hearing their state criticisms. As though the walls would run with their secrets and return with a brutal punishment. The amount of unclear, undefined symbols such as the trench coat, the Kid, and the Child, all alluded to our need for answers and clarity in settings where they are not promised. Sometimes symbols were remain unclear antecedents, they will bring anxiety, and that is the way it is.
“At our last class, Professor lightly hinted that I often overanalyze texts to find a deeper meaning that perhaps might not exist”
Ha! I’m sorry about that. I do very much appreciate your class contributions! Though I think it’s worth sometimes going slowly…
…and this text is a good example. Here, for instance, before we jump in and try to figure out what the trenchcoat may mean, we need to think about whether it means *anything*. Is there a “deeper meaning” here or not?
I think that even by the end we still don’t know. And we recognize that this causes anxiety… a fear that we are either missing the meaning, or (alternatively) getting worked up over something that actually means nothing.
And as I say in the lecture, this can be an allegory for how we approach texts, too.
“Yet due to the politically-charged environment and setting of the novella, something as simple and mundane as a coat can be cause for concern, dialogue review, and prolonged panic.”
I think this is an excellent way to put it. Precisely something as simple as a coat (which is not even recognized as a trenchcoat, but with different coat names) triggers a state of collective paranoia. The meaning of the object floats, but in the end, we don’t know what it was (maybe it was just a coat).
I really enjoyed reading your analyzation. It points out so many interesting topics!
The whole controversy between the trenchcoat being a ‘symbol’ or just an ‘object’ is really interesting. I speculated over this multiple times after reading; whether the trenchcoat was a symbol of uncertainty and suspicion (Romania during the times) or just a trenchcoat. I think I forced myself to think it was a symbol, as I wanted to relate it to this whole theme of suspicion and censorship. However, reading your blog, I also feel it could just be an object. It could just be a trenchcoat, while still having significance to the overall theme of the story.
– Daniel Choi