On Manea’s Guest Lecture

Hearing from Professor Manea himself was a true honour. Such a deeply personal insight into the book through the lens of the author and his experience. After hearing about his life, about totalitarian Romania, about his exodus, it all made The Trenchcoat much clearer. I have to say though, even after knowing more about the context, I think my thoughts about the book have simultaneously changed but also been reinforced. The titular trenchcoat was an object that I wondered if it was allegorical or not. I ultimately concluded that no, it was not, or at least, the important thing is not the trenchcoat itself. Knowing it to be a representation of the Securitate and of informants, I stand by my view that it is not important what it represents. It’s not important whether there’s an actual informant in the midst. What matters is how it changes people, rooting a deep-seated paranoia and fear that’s waiting to bubble over. All it takes is one stray trenchcoat.

Anyway, a short little post just to reflect on Manea’s talk. I have to say that hearing his own story as a writer makes me more inspired to write myself. Evidently, it’s never too late to start!

Norman Manea, “The Trenchcoat”

“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)

Spam prevention powered by Akismet