I found myself a bit confused when reading this one, as it was often hard to tell who was speaking at times when reading the novel. The author would also often use nicknames referring to some characters, alternating from calling a character “the kid”, “the guileless one” and the wasp”, or in other cases I was unsure that “Bazil” and “Vasile” where the same character or not.
The novel follows two couples in Romania under a totalitarian regime, who are going to get together at the home of Bazil and Dina Beldeanu, who seem to have connections within the regime.
The couples feel uneasy enjoying the luxurious meals that were prepared while the rest of the country is without food or electricity. Even though the atmosphere is light, we feel the inauthenticity as if the host is performing for the guests, where each question, mannerism, and even the way he says goodbye is rehearsed. By the end of the night, the guests felt like they had a good time and that the get-together succeeded in allowing them to remember how to have fun and acted as a break from the monotonousness cycle of everyday life, even if it was just for a short while (or maybe it was just the alcohol talking).
However, after it is over, the couples seem to be reluctant to even give a phone call to their hosts to thank them, and it is as if they don’t want to maintain a friendship with the Beldeanus. I believe that both couples distrust the Beldeanus, echoing the common sentiment at the time where the feeling that anyone could be an informant watching for your every move. It also does not help that Bazil is a party member and even though he attempts to try and separate himself from them by saying that “there are lots of people who get us mixed up with them. Especially these last few years, people figure everyone’s a snitch, on the payroll of the secret police”, the distrust still remains. One of the couples eventually calls them to thank them, seemingly marking the conclusion of their relationship. But then, Dina mentions that someone has left a raincoat at their home. Something that would otherwise be considered an insignificant event, causes Dina to become suspicious and she starts trying to meet with both couples.
At first, I thought the raincoat was something that Dina made up so she could have an excuse to talk with them once again because maybe she secretly wanted to keep these people in her life as she seemed to be somewhat lonely and discontent with the boredom in her life. After that, I thought that maybe she used the raincoat as a way for her to have a way to start a conversation with “the kid” who is an old childhood friend of hers, as she admits that she has wanted the possibility to have a conversation with him for a long time.
At the end of the novel, Ionna sees Dina and her childhood friend “the kid” together both wearing a raincoat where Ionna learns from her husband Ali, that Dina and “the kid” go on walks together every week. Ionna refuses to believe that “the kid” who is supposed to have an apparent hatred for Dina would suddenly start going on walks with her without having an ulterior motive causing Ionna to go into a fit of rage and start questioning everything.
To me, it seems like maybe Ionna is unable to accept that “the kid” and Dina are just rekindling their old friendship as a way to help with the boredom that is present in both of their lives. Her attempts to analyze and further try to come up with theories for the reason why both of them were wearing raincoats show how distrustful she is and a tendency to assume the worst in people (which I guess is sort of justified considering the period in which she lives).
Personally, I was not sure what the trenchcoat was supposed to represent, the fact that it is described as something that is constantly changing and that the characters would often mix up by either calling it a trenchcoat or a raincoat, I just wasn't really sure what to make out of it. I guess the fact that it causes Dina anxiety could represent the feeling that someone could always be watching and the mental struggle that is associated with that feeling. Or maybe we are all like Ionna trying to find meaning in something that could just be a coincidence and ultimately doesn't mean anything.
My question for everyone:
What do you think the trenchcoat represents?
"... each question, mannerism, and even the way he says goodbye is rehearsed..." This idea is very interesting. There are two aspects in this novel that are related to this: the performative and the costumes (in the theatrical sense). Each gesture is a message waiting to be deciphered, but at the same time it implies an education of corporality, a habitus, to call it properly. But in this performance there is an exaggeration, almost like a Theater of the Absurd (I think of Beckett, for example).
ReplyDeleteHey Marcus, Manea actually addresses this question in this week's discussion video. Essentially, the trenchcoat was commonly worn by the Romanian secret police, so in that way I think it represents state surveillance under totalitarian rule and how widespread it was.
ReplyDelete-Nathan Harris
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the book was really confusing and often quite challenging to read. I thought it was great social commentary on inequality and buerocracy and appreciated that you also noticed some of those themes!