Manea’s “The Trenchcoat” stirred up some discomfort in me, given the ambiguous nature of the text, but it was certainly an enjoyable read. The discomfort came primarily from moving across the pages in an unfamiliar setting, with unfamiliar characters, in writing that imbibed a tone of ambiguity. However, I appreciate that this course has encouraged me to read texts that defy the very notion of what a novel means, or what “good writing” entails. Manea’s writing can be read as a useful artifact in capturing the lives of people living through social and political turmoil. What is interesting is, even as the characters occupy space in Romania at a time in history when it was disintegrating, Manea has managed to depict them as detached and individuals with agency.
The most gripping parts of the text for me were the ones that referenced socio-political life under authoritarian regimes, in the context of communism. While most of the book is carefully curated to focus on inter-personal and intimate networks and interactions between people, Manea made some remarks that alluded to the Romanian regime. On page 193, “For a Latin people like ours..it’s the desire to get together that has disappeared.” This specific placement of the Stoian’s family, within their cultural context, makes the remark powerful. It depicts that they experience a loss of excitement and a loss of the feeling of unity that ties their people together, under the authoritarian regime where communities grow suspicious of one another, and live in fear of the power of the government.
Another great example of the aforementioned point is found on p.196, when the family is in the car, discussing the children’s patriotic oath that they say at school- “ I’ll be tall, healthy, clean and neat, without ever needing a bite to eat.” Manea has an extraordinary ability to frame these historical instances through an unpolitical example to politically outline the dearth of necessities that gripped most countries that were communists. In this case, it outlines scarcity created by communism, in contrast to the West (obsessed with consumption and consumerism) as a “sign of the times” (p.196) that Romania is in.
To end, this discussion would certainly be incomplete without referencing the Trenchcoat. In my reading of the text, the Trenchcoat acts as the central symbol in the book. The ordinary trench coat is the ordinary citizen. In a regular context, it is not a threatening object, but given the conditions of the book- it is looked at with suspicion, interest, and a deliberate curiosity, which is similar to how ordinary citizens interact and engage with each other. An ordinary object like the Trenchcoat, and the ordinary citizen, becomes a reason for everyone to be on their toes, as though they are being watched.
Question for Manea:
Are there any specific lessons on courage that you can give your readers who are interested in writing/ becoming writers? (I ask, since your work can most definitely be considered an act of bravery, having been written against the political landscape of Romania)
Great post, Astha.
I’m glad this course encouraged and challenged you to read texts differently.
It is interesting what you say about the author addressing the political issues of the Romanian regime. Manea manages in an elliptical way not to name the dictator or specific references to the regime. However, in many contexts, it becomes more explicit, such as the ones you mention, or on page 239 about THE INSTITUTION, that it can be the State or the dictator himself.