“What, what the… what the hell is it with that raincoat?” (p.253)
This story made much more sense when the context is explained in the lecture. I read the initial part blind and found myself thoroughly confused but also very tense and intrigued (in a good way); it conveyed an unnatural feeling that something was terribly wrong but everyone was putting up pretences. The dialogue is somewhat bizarre and the constant repetition and run-on makes for uncomfortable scenes even when it’s simply a mundane party. The stormy, dark weather that seems to drown out the surroundings only serves to make for an ominous backdrop and is punctuated by little references to totalitarian control. It makes so much more sense understanding the allegorical purpose; Don Bazil and his wife are so jittery and constantly putting up a front, and while the guests humour them they are not particularly satisfied. It is hollow. Farcical. A mere show, and no substance.
Later, after Dina’s calls about the mysterious trenchcoat inexplicably cease, Ali and the Kid (?) get into a heated discussion about Dina and the trenchcoat. The tension builds quickly as Ali gets increasingly frustrated, and it’s interesting to observe how delicately he beats around the bush. I wonder if this is Manea himself beating around the issue of censorship.
Over time I think the book becomes increasingly confusing, perhaps by design. It is all incredibly vague, yet poetic, and mysterious as well. Why is the unnamed One unnamed? What does the trenchcoat represent, if anything? Perhaps the trenchcoat is indeed just a trenchcoat. A meaningless object, but in a world teetering on the brink, even something so innocuous can spark such tension. Worth noting, I think, is that the trenchcoat is not just nondescript and anonymous, but sometimes isn’t even described correctly, often mistakenly referred to as a raincoat or overcoat instead. This leads me to believe the trenchcoat really isn’t anything of significance, and yet everyone treats it like something of significance. I think this only lends to the tension hanging in the air. Nobody is ever really sure of anything. But evidently there is a link between the unnamed One and the coat, and they both go by multiple, indistinct names too.
I wonder what the ending means. Time is personified as laughter, but described so poetically yet so abstractly.
I’m very much looking forward to listening to Manea in person. Overall, I admire Manea’s writing style a lot. Such interesting and unique ways of creating atmosphere and vagueness. I also find the title of the collection pretty interesting. “Compulsory Happiness”, as if there is not even the freedom to feel.
A general question: What is ‘ex’ supposed to represent? It is repeated a lot by the unnamed One, and later by Ioana at the end.
For Manea: What was it like having to work around the censor? How much of what you wanted to say was left unsaid, and do you think you said what you wanted to say better, in the way that you did?
“There’s something going on! There’s always something under the face, obviously. Obviously! Nothing is what it seems, nothing or no one, not even your own husband, no one! Anyone can become anything! Anyone, anytime, anything?” (p.257)
Your blog post was so interesting to read! I did not read the Trench coat this week but wanted to hear about what it was like because it sounded interesting. This book seems a little hard to follow because of the unknown meanings of the trenchcoat, the ex, and the unnamed one. It all creates a very mysterious, or maybe forgetful/hidden theme. What drew me to your blog post was the quote you have at the top about what the hell is with the raincoat. It is cool to see how simple things like a raincoat or trenchcoat can hold meaning in the story, and even so much to be the title of the story when we usually would look past those things and never think associate them with meaningful. Thanks for a great post!
Hi Andrew! Thank you for your post. I especially like the last part of your first sentence. I think that is exactly what it feels like to live under communism or any other form of authoritarian government. The dialogue is bizarre because living under dictatorial regimes can make people lose their ability to think and debate critically. This is extensive because they fear the government and its punishments, and do not trust each other. To answer your question, I think the characterization of time using laughter shows the helplessness and weak mentalities of citizens suffering from the social control carried out by communist governments. As time progresses, their emotions start to get abnormal.
Hello! Very cool post. I also found myself confused and somewhat lost when I dived into the book blind, but after reading a summary online and watching the lecture video, it became much more understandable! Interesting point about how the trenchcoat is referred to by both “raincoat” and “overcoat.” This ambiguous, unsure wording definitely adds to the mystery and the fogginess that surrounds this piece.
Excellent post, Andrew!
“Nobody is ever really sure of anything” I get this sentence from your post, which I think portrays the distrust, the paranoia, the appearances that the characters suffer in this novel.
It’s great that you can ask Manea directly about the censorship issue.