Manea’s The Trenchcoat was such a breather compared to the other books, I actually liked reading it. Starting the book, I didn’t know how to feel or what to expect, but the dinner party created an uncomfortable environment. From the title itself, I expected some crime, thriller, or murder mystery vibes just through the ambiguity surrounded by the title, along with the trenchcoat as an object. That may just be me, but the idea of a trench coat made me resonate it to a mystery or detective genre since they’re pretty prominent in those books and shows. Because of that association, I went into it expecting some sort of big climax.
The chaos created by simply a trench coat being left behind was so fascinating to me, and what made it interesting for me. Thinking about it, if any of us were to lose our trenchcoat or see a lost trenchcoat, today we wouldn’t think much of it. However, the reaction here is completely different. I think this is related to the characters living in communist Romania, where they live under fear and surveillance. Due to this political environment, I believe that’s why they’re so careful with what they talk about, and even something simple like a coat being forgotten may feel so threatening. I think the trench coat didn’t even need to belong to a spy to be powerful, but the idea of them being watched or under surveillance is sufficient to control their behaviour. It was so interesting how just the fear of the political system easily ruined the trust between the individuals when they started suspecting each other.
Additionally, I found the unclear ending pretty ironic. The title in itself leaves a lot of mystery/ambiguity, as I mentioned and reading the novel, you’re expecting an answer, there’s a sense that the mystery of the coat will be explained. However, instead of the answer we’re expecting, Manea gives us an answer, showcasing how the mystery of the coat showcases the environment of uncertainty and fear that society people experience. I feel that Manea not providing us with a clear explanation somewhat makes the read more impactful. In a sense, it conveys the same uncertainty the characters experience to the reader, incorporating the same ambiguity as in the title, into the message itself. My question to you is, did the ambiguous ending (not having a clear answer on the trenchcoat’s owner) make the story more powerful or frustrating for you as a reader? Why?
4 replies on “Ambiguity at its finest”
“I feel that Manea not providing us with a clear explanation somewhat makes the read more impactful. In a sense, it conveys the same uncertainty the characters experience to the reader, incorporating the same ambiguity as in the title, into the message itself.”
Yes, the ambiguity is definitely a key aspect and characterizes the novel as a whole.
Share your thoughts in class.
See you on Wednesday.
Julián.
Hii, I totally agree that the novel initially felt very mystery like but ended up being really simple. I also enjoyed reading it overall.
agree with you on ambiguity, i think that’s why there was no answer – you already know the answer. in “war times” everyone is fearful of truth telling and plain talk.
I was expecting for there to be answers and more of a climax as well, and I think that for me it was more frustrating as a reader to have the ambiguous ending. I can definitely understand the point of there not being an answer and the message of the uncertainty living in such a situation, but as a reader it was so frustrating not to have a satisfying, neat conclusion (even though I know that’s not always something that you can have in reality).