Throwing off “The Overcoat”
The overcoat that protagonist, Akaky Akakievich, used to have before his new one is so ragged, worn-out and dusty. In Gogol’s “The Overcoat,” this particular overcoat plays an important role as a subject matter in that its oldness becomes the major motivation of Akaky Akakievich’s change of mind. Though poor and stingy he was, with the persuasion of the tailor and his own need he pays for the new overcoat while throws off the old one. As if it is an allusion, it is interesting to find out the similarity between the overcoat and story as one of the literary genres. There has been a literary formalism and formalist approach (classical view) which still affects today. In traditional text analysis, it is dominant to survey the text within the consideration of the author’s intention. Approaching to “The Overcoat” in this manner, however, can be problematic. Author (or narrator) plays with the names, description of the character and situation, and words/sentences he himself uses, making readers confused about the reliability of the authority of the author. Therefore, by the analysis of Gogol’s writing skills in the text, deconstructive strategy adopted by the author “throwing off ” the former writing tradition is to be found.
Naming motif is emphasized throughout the story. Naming is treated very importantly from many authors, since it is not selected simply but with serious contemplation and hesitation. Going far and rebelling against this, names in the text are treated almost like jokes. Deconstruction theory, advocated mainly from Jacques Derrida, explains that there is no absolute and fixed one meaning to the word. The concept of “diffferance” which means both deferring the meaning and differentiating is closely connected to the seemingly sceptical or just playful notion of naming of the characters and places. The beginning of the whole story, “In the department of…but it is best not to name the department” (311) indicates very well from the start; the narrator tried to start the story unlike the other ones, by not mentioning the name which could be considered as important factor of the story in traditional thinking. He defers to name, cutting off the connections between the word and the fictional reality. In addition, how Akaky Akakievich’s name has been named is explained in a humorous and critical manner. Akaky Akakievich’s mom is given some suggestions for her son from other people, but at the end she shouts out: “No, all those names are wrong” (311). And just reuse the father’s name attached to it. Another funny naming in the story includes Very Important Person who is called constantly without original name but by his degree of importance. Narrator does not seem to even further explain or comment about the name (324). Treating the naming as unimportant while readers expect it to be important results in the opposite effect—naming of this story achieves innovative and deconstructive effect which differentiates itself from conventions.
Narrator’s contrary attitude and tone which appear in dictions and description is showing another deconstructive method. In general, consistency in tone of narrator is thought to be natural and expected. Not all the literature adopts the consistent attitude but especially in “The Overcoat,” narrator’s capricious and unreliable attitude is so distinguished that it even confuses the readers. In the first place, words which shows assertive manner of the speaker such as “certain,” “evident,” “inevitable,” “plainly,” “out of question” etc are repeatedly used in the text. In description of the situations or characters, this manner is also easily found: “there is nothing to do but describe him” (315), “The only answer is a new overcoat” (317), “judging from appearances he must be a good man” (324) and so on. On the contrary, it is remarkable to see the other way around: how ambiguous and uncertain manners are also detected. Sentence such as “From God knows how far away, a faint light glimmered from a sentry box that seemed to stand on the very edge of the world” (323) or “Now the exact official position of this Very Important Person remains mysterious (325)” show some other things in the story are unrevealed or on purposely missed compared to declarative tone that something (some information) has to be delivered or mentioned to the readers. Hesitative words such as “rather,” “mysterious” are found; uncertainty of the event which does not clearly mention how the theft of the coat has been happened and who was the burglar etc are not clearly appeared in the text. It is almost portrayed as supernatural mood or daydreaming. From this deconstructive narration crossing over opposite tone which is different from the other text which regards consistency of the whole text as an important value, it could be possible to read the author’s intention (though then it is again trapped by the classical reading in relation to author’s design) as to challenge the literary value.
Second point of the literary skill Gogol’s practicing is that there are plays within the ellipse and talkative style both coexisting in the story. What is clearly written out and what is not is also a key point to approach the text. Like deconstruction theory explains, something unsaid or excluded from the system in fact might play the core role, meaning that what is lost can be the starting point of the argument (Storey. 74). In the story, narrator is employing two methods of narrating: that of ellipse (or jumping) and being extremely talkative. After the sentence “It is not necessary to say much about this tailor, […] there is nothing to do but describe him” the narrator explains about this tailor in nano-detail: his original name, his wife (in long explanation about her again), his drunken habit etc. How Akaky saved his money to pay for the overcoat is also explained in tedious, talkative and excessive way compared to its importance accounting for the whole story. However, some important features of the story, such as the event of the overcoat stolen, or how Akaky Akakievich became to die, are not in detail and not plausibly explained. Thus, it gives impression that narrator only excessively talks about unnecessary details while explanation on key events are ghostly disappearing. Thus this text is achieving the great success by making readers curious about “what is unsaid,” which is an important question for the deconstruction theory.
Lastly, it is interesting to notice the author’s own concern and attachment to the words he is using in speeches of his imaginary characters. “It should be noted that Akaky Akakievich habitually expressed himself with apologies, random parts of speech, and disconnected phrases that had no meaning whatsoever” (316) implies the narrator’s direct mentioning of the character’s way of speech habit. Narrator also focuses on other meaningless dialogues between characters, Very Important Person and his old friend: “So what do you think, Ivan Abramovich?” “I think so, Stepan Varlammovich!” (326). In addition, by observing Akaky Akakievich’s speech (how often he used more its and thats than usual in front of VIP’s rage), it can be stated that author himself is focused on the way of speaking of his characters which distances readers to being conscious about reading by continuously intervening the story flow. Thus, eventually, readers start to objectify or liberate the text from the author’s grip.
Like Akaky Akakievich’s newly made overcoat, Gogol’s literary innovation in “The Overcoat” through deconstructive strategy might be stolen and disappear, since that is what deconstruction theory pursues: not making any form but a process. Problematizing naming, contrariness in narrative tone, talkativeness and distancing readers from the text were employed as author’s effective strategy to rebel against the formalistic approach to a story genre. Of course, a paradox arises by the fact that we become more focused on author’s narrative strategy that tried to deconstruct the reader’s following on author’s intention. However, still it is meaningful since reading this insightful literature can be a footstep to read other literature in critical and creative view in the future.
Works Cited
Gogol, Nikolai. “The Overcoat.” The Art of the Short Story. Ed. Dana Gioia and R.S. Gwynn. New York: Longman, 2006. 310-331
Storey, John. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction. Third Edition. Pearson, 2001. 73-75
2009-06-12 [Writing]