My Little Nora

In Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House,” Nora is treated as a child for her beliefs even though in many ways she is merely idealistic and sometimes ahead of her times. Hardly an exchange passes without someone referring to Nora as “my little,” even a “child”, and sometimes cutesy nicknames like skylark and squirrel.

This infantilizing stems from Nora’s idealistic beliefs of how the world *should* operate. She believes that ultimately the law cannot prosecute her for forgery because “it must say somewhere that… a wife [is] entitled to save her husband’s life.” When she decides to take the safe course of action and ask Helmer to reinstate Krogstad, he informs her that “Little song-birds must keep their pretty little beaks out of mischief; no chirruping out of tune.” One can almost hear the patronizing tone that the actor playing Helmer adopts to speak to his trophy wife, perhaps as he stoops down and squeezes her cheak. Upon concluding that Krogstad cannot make due on his threats because she has “three small children,” Ibsen immediately follows the passage by having the nursemaid, a servant of the house, call her mistress “my poor little Nora.”

As the play unravels, Nora reveals a truly modern attitude and is once more debased for it. Her intentions to pursue her “sacred duty” to herself over her duty to her husband and children prompt Helmer to accuse or of thinking and talking “like a stupid child.” However her decision to pursue her own life goals instead of those that society has imposed upon her demonstrate a modern feminism thinking that was decried at the time, leading to Ibsen’s “barbaric outrage” of rewriting the ending so that Nora does not leave.

Human Duality

The Very Important Person stands as a symbol of human duality. While he was definitely power-hungry and strove to appear in control and calloused,“Sympathy for a fellow human being was not alien to him; his love was open to al kinds of kindly impulses in spite of the fact that his rank often prevented them from coming to the surface. As soon as the friend he had not seen for so long had left, he felt a little worried about poor Akaky, and since that day he could not get the pale face of the meek little Government Clerk out of his head, the poor Civil Servant who could not take an official reprimand like a man” (268).

The Very Important Person stands as a symbol of human duality. While he was definitely power-hungry and strove to appear in control and calloused, Akaky helped to bring out his more emotional side. This excerpt demonstrates the Very Important Person’s natural human inclination to feel pity for another, despite his appearance of being immune to the particular sentiment. This man serves as a symbol of hope to all of mankind. He shows that even those who may appear to solely think about themselves and don’t notice when others take offense to their words are likely to possess more humility under the surface than they care to lead on. His deep worry following his reprimand of Akaky shows that somewhere inside he felt at least a hint of guilt in the way he presented his words. He evidently learned his lesson to the fullest when he heard of Akaky’s death. Did he feel fully responsible? Did he sense the great amount of guilt that he should have for his contribution for Akaky’s death? I believe he did. “This incident made a deep impression upon the Very Important Person. It was not so frequently now that his subordinates heard him say, ‘How dare you, sir? Do you realize who you’re taking to, sir?’ And if he did say it, it was only after he had heard what it was all about” (271). Despite the fact that he did learn his lesson, it’s sad to say that it took Akaky’s loss of life for this to be the case, as is the case for most humans today. While a literal human life may not always be the cost, oftentimes others are disabled in some way—whether mentally or physically—before another can learn of his or her wrongdoings.

Universal Misuse of Power

In Gogol’s The Overcoat, the main character is portrayed as an outcast of society who nevertheless finds purpose in copying documents at work.  Although he is the target of office jokes and pushed around by society’s needs to target the weak, he nonetheless appears to not let it get to him.  The narrator comments, “never a word did Akaky say to it all, as though unaware of the presence of his tormentors in the office.” At first, it seems like he isn’t able to feel, as if he is numb to society’s attempts to control his emotions and to get a rise out of him. Throughout his life and until death, Akaky is portrayed as a powerless target of mistreatment who doesn’t seem to have his own voice in society.

However, once he gets a new overcoat he is welcomed by his office mates and given an invitation to be part of larger society.  The overcoat appears to be the sole reason that he is given that chance and once the overcoat is taken away he seems to finally become aware of what his life is missing.  It seems that the theft of his overcoat is symbolic of the limitations that he faces.  When the only person (the VIP) who can help him recover what he’s lost fails to do so, it becomes clear that Akaky’s lack of power and place in society will finally have an effect on his well-being. This leads to his sudden death. 

However, it is ironic that the injustice that befell Akaky when his coat is snatched, is later committed by his ghost towards the innocent citizens of St. Petersberg. Akaky, who was, “under the pretext of recovering this lost overcoat, was stripping overcoats off the backs of all sorts of people, irrespective of their rank or calling.” His ghost was also “causing alarm and dismay among all law-abiding citizens of timid dispositions.”  This shows that not only was the VIP capable of a misuse of power but Akaky is also when he is likewise placed in a position of power.  This changes the sympathy that I once had for Akaky, who is also subject to preying on the weak and timid when given the opportunity.  Even the victim in our story is capable of producing victims out of other members of society and will take advantage of that power.  These chain of events depicts that  preying on the weak is a problem built into all of society, an internal problem that is built within.

When reading this story, I was confused if it is Akaky’s inability to have a voice in society that contributes to his downfall.  Before the series of events, Akaky didn’t try to have his own voice.  When he was given the assignment of making a few changes to a document, it “gave him so much trouble that he was bathed in perspiration” and expressed that he could not complete the task. Likewise, when he tried to stand up to the VIP and failed, it ruined him.  This gives a sense of foreboding that he is only safe within the comfort of his own limitations and that stepping outside of those in a chance to be heard will ultimately be futile.  Gogol may have been pointing out that humans are stuck within their own limitations and it is only when Akaky steps outside his human limitations- and becomes a ghost- that is he able to exert himself.  

Freddy vs. Akaky

A very introverted and reclusive protagonist, Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin, who spends most of his time copying documents of unknown importance invoke descriptions from readers such as pathetic, worthless, or a pushover. The last words that one would use to describe Akaky throughout most of the novel would be assertive and goal-oriented. In fact, even his name, with Greek roots, directly means “harmless” or “lacking evil.” It is safe to say that the most action that’s ever happened to Akaky is when he was robbed of his overcoat near the end of the story. Fortunately for Akaky, he mans up and changes from the day in & day out copying that controls his life.

Even though Akaky ends up dying over something small and meaningless such as the loss of his new overcoat, he redeems himself by the end, saving himself in the last few pages. I’m sure most readers have had a point in their life when they have been completely afraid of ghosts. Some might even recall a place such as under the bed, closet, or attic where they have been particularly afraid. Fortunately for Akaky, a huge shift in power occurs after he dies. Once tormented by co-workers, muggers, and the Very Important Person, Akaky engages on an adventure that could easily be turned into a novel on its own. Akaky is the one calling the shots as a ghost, roaming the streets of St. Petersburg stealing overcoats from people.

I don’t know about other readers, but personally I would be petrified if, on a cold night in Russia, my overcoat was taken by a stout redheaded ghost. Ironically, the one man who would not help Akaky and even scolds him is eventually haunted by him. Once a quiet document copier, Akakievich could not have made more of a change as he becomes part of the supernatural. Even the ones who mugged him, in the end, are alluded to have had a similar fate, roaming the streets in another part of the city. Did Akaky have anything to do with this? With his level of power by the end, it is no wonder that the robbers are doomed to a restless death.

Unconditioned Response

I don't think the main cause of his problem is buying a new overcoat, but rather his own satisfaction with his dull life. He lives to copy and takes harsh ridicule from officers, and he doesn't enjoy anything new. My question is why is that? Does a name really define who you are in life, that he's going to be a mere copier for the rest of his life? Just because you're named Brittany doesn't mean you'll turn out to be a sterotypical party girl (I'm not hating on her, I like her fyi). I digress, but I don't think a name should define who a person is and becomes. So why doesn't Akaky have a thirst for adventure, curiousity, or any normal human desires (justified as a right to the "pursuit of happiness" )? What made him this way? If he had such a desire in the beginning of his life, he would learn how to control it later on in his life and he would know that he shouldn't put his entire heart and soul on just one thing. In this case, his overcoat is viciously stolen and it completely destroys him. If he had a sense of control over his desires, he might have not suffered such an ill fate. For instance, children who are not allowed out to socialize with their friends may become a party animal in college. They didn't have the chance to learn to control their desires, and when they have complete freedom, they go insane, for lack of a better word. My only problem is I don't see what could have caused Akaky's lack of effort in pursuing desires or even having desires to begin with. The answer could possibly be in Jessica Ng's blog "Who's the Villain?" explaining St. Petersburg as the main cause of Akaky's disposition. The weather, surroundings, and social ranking probably make it impossible for anyone to move up a class, thus Akaky could have learned at an early age that he should just settle for what he has. Of course, we learn later on, it's only human nature to have desires and pursue happiness. But his lack of control over it (unconditioned response), however, leads to his downfall.

Baby, Bunny, Crumb

A friend of mine, when seeing my Four Major Plays by Henrik Ibsen on my desk, said “Oh! I hope you’ll get to read “A Doll’s House.” It’s a very cute play. I beg to differ from her opinion. When starting to read the play, I expected cute things as I was told. I enjoyed reading this play but have formed an opinion of it different from hers. I thought “A Doll’s House” was a saddening play despite of Ibsen’s cheerful diction.
I thought it was interesting that betrayal had begun in the first couple pages of the play. Nora was secretly munching on macaroons and lied to her husband about it later. This sets the tone for the entire play, I think. It is considered betrayal in the story but in contemporary life it would just have been considered a woman doing what she wants in an abusive relationship. Helmer uses names for his wife that make her seem as if she was her child. “Is that my little sky-lark chirping out there?” “Is that my little squirrel frisking about?” This, to me, was not so unfamiliar. In our culture and several others, do we not use such terms toward our loved ones and especially our spouses? In the United States, couples frequently refer to each other as “baby.” Certainly that is not a sign of respect. In Russian culture, loved ones refer to each other as “крошка,” meaning “[bread] crumb,” “кролик,” meaning bunny, or any infinite number of other animals. These terms are not considered demeaning in our societies; I know I use them. In “A Doll’s House,” however, they are given that connotation. Is there a difference between what Ibsen wrote and what people in modern-day life say?

The Problem with Akaky

After reading The Overcoat, I don’t necessarily think that this was a story of sadness. Rather, I took this story as a lesson to not place all your significance. One of the problems with Akaky is that he has a tendency to let only one thing to completely consume his life. In the beginning of the story, his life has only one purpose: to copy papers. He doesn't talk to his peers, he doesn't make plans after work, and he doesn't even take pleasure in eating because he eats the same thing everyday. Even after work, when his peers are out enjoying themselves, he sits at home and continues his work for the day. This is obviously unhealthy because his work is the only thing he finds significant. Later, he develops a new obsession when he finds that he needs a new coat. He makes his life more miserable than it already is by not drinking tea at night, or using the light from his landlady's candle, all for the sake of saving money for his new coat. In addition, he continuously visits fabric stores and talks to Petrovitch about how he will make the coat. He doesn’t matter if his current life is miserable, because all he can think about is his new coat. As seen in the text, this new obsession has completely taken over his old one. Before the coat, the text elaborates greatly on his work as a copier, but after he receives the coat, the text only speaks of his work as a copier superficially. When he finally receives his coat, he is finally receives contentment, the same feeling of contentment he used to get when he was copying papers. But when his coat is stolen, his life shatters. If a normal person got robbed, they would be shaken, but they would be able to get back on their feet. But because Akaky turned the coat into the only significant thing in his life, he is devastated when it is taken from him. The problem isn’t with the coat, it is with Akady. He probably would have been similarly devastated if he lost his copying job, which was previously the only thing he found significant. If he were able to find joy in other things, he would have been able to compose himself after he was robbed. Although we are probably not as extreme as Akaky, I think that many of us do the same thing as Akaky did. We only place our significance in a few things, whether it is getting good grades, relationships, or money. If one of these things were taken away from us, we would be shattered. Gogol’s message is to place your significance in many things so if one of these things happened to not work out, we would still have other interests to fall back on.

Was Akaky Better Odd Never Needing an Overcoat?

In our last discussion of this short story I noticed many people seemed to think that before Akaky began his quest for his new overcoat that he was less human or even inhuman. With this view of the character, his buying of the overcoat, though ending badly, was ultimately good. For if Akaky was never to seek a replacement for his “capote” then he would have lived and died without ever being a true person. Even though his new overcoat led to his early death it also lead to his own self discovery making his life, at least for a short time, worth something.

I in no way subscribe to this school of thought. I believe Akaky’s new overcoat is what pushed him away from happiness and led him down a spiraling path to his eventual death. There are three pieces of strong evidence that leads me to believe the overcoat was a curse and not an article that gave his life meaning: the fact that Akaky thoroughly enjoyed his life while being a simple copyist and yet hated the life he had after the overcoat, the fact that he kept his stutter after he had come into his new life, and the fact that his coworkers saw him as a fellow human even before the new overcoat.

Akaky may be hard for the average person to understand because he has a passion for something looked at to be boring. However, as boring as copying is, it is a passion nonetheless. This protagonist of ours has a job, meals, a place to go everyday, and most importantly, a passion. To me, this is more human than going to parties and socializing with people who aren’t even worth names in the story.

We as the reader may see going out and being involved in the world as truly human, because it is what makes us happy. Though Akaky went out into the world after his new overcoat he wasn’t happy to be doing it. He was very clearly out of his element in common society and functioned better in his previous solitary life. I believe this is best illustrated by his stutter. A stutter, especially coupled with Akaky’s lack of confidence, makes it hard for him to communicate with other people. This problem that follows Akaky when in social situations conveys the message that he is more uncomfortable in these situations than in his solitary life as a copier.

The most compelling line in the short story in my opinion is a thought of one of Akaky’s coworkers at the start of the story. “And in those pathetic words he seemed to hear others: ‘I am your brother.’” Before the coat and before the coat was stolen Akaky was looked at as a brother. Though this fact was not always evident to his coworkers it still obviously existed to Gogol. He was human and happy before the new overcoat. If Akaky was to live in LA he never would have to have an overcoat and could have lived a long happy life as an awkward copyist.

"I am thy brother."

"But if the joking became wholly unbearable, as when they jogged his hand and prevented his attending to his work, he would exclaim, "Leave me alone! Why do you insult me?" And there was something strange in the words and the voice in which they were uttered. There was in it something which moved to pity; so much that one young man, a new-comer, who, taking pattern by the others, had permitted himself to make sport of Akakiy, suddenly stopped short, as though all about him had undergone a transformation, and presented itself in a different aspect. Some unseen force repelled him from the comrades whose acquaintance he had made, on the supposition that they were well-bred and polite men. Long afterwards, in his gayest moments, there recurred to his mind the little official with the bald forehead, with his heart-rending words, "Leave me alone! Why do you insult me?" In these moving words, other words resounded --"I am thy brother." And the young man covered his face with his hand; and many a time afterwards, in the course of his life, shuddered at seeing how much inhumanity there is in man, how much savage coarseness is concealed beneath delicate, refined worldliness, and even, O God! in that man whom the world acknowledges as honourable and noble."

I chose this excerpt because I didn't really think it fit with the rest of the story. Sure, the narrator frequently went of on seemingly irrelevant tirades, but to me this one was different. The voice seems to morph; the narrator's voice, in my head, changes tone, almost becoming evangelistic. The narrator loses his position as an acquaintance of Akaky, a spectator recalling a story, suddenly becoming all-knowing and describing the experience of another character, an unnamed character. My first reaction to this unnamed character was that perhaps he was a reflection of Gogol himself, in how he reacted to the story that inspired him to write "The Overcoat" in the first place. I thought perhaps Gogol included it to indicate how he might hope his readers will react to this story. Then, I considered that this character might be included as a character foil to the narrator: this coworker is truly empathetic to an extent that he holds his head in his hand and shudders even in his happiest moments, while the narrator spends the story mocking Akaky's every move. Strangely, though the narrator makes so much fun of Akaky, the narrator doesn't tease the coworker at all for sympathizing with Akaky...although I suppose the "O God!" could be read as sarcasm...but I don't think it is. There's something about this passage where I just feel like it's really important and meaningful, and yet I'm not really sure what message I'm supposed to be getting out of it.

Even more jarring is the phrase "I am thy brother." That's gotta mean something. That must be significant to the purpose of this story. I'm just not sure...what to make of it...

Dangers of Indulgence

In reading Gogol's The Overcoat, and following the life of Akaky Akakievich, one sees even the most mechanical and simple-minded man fall to materialism and consciousness of fitting into society.
Though Akaky lives robotically, obsessed within his line of work, his work "was a labour of love to him." As boring and pathetic as that may seem to us living in the 21st century, Akaky lived the "peaceful life of a man who knew how to be content" with his life. Although society may laugh at this example of a minimalistic life, Akaky himself is okay with where he is. It is we as people in society that are not okay with such a social misfit- even a content one at that. Being able to relate and understand the man's choice to live a life of such simplicity-as boring as such a life may be- is something that is very difficult to grasp. He does not need luxuries and embellisments in his life, and has not yet been coerced into society's never-ending quest for more.
Akaky demonstrates the progression of fitting in with society through his eventual cave to materialism when he is forced to buy a new overcoat. Work is his first love but is replaced by his new overcoat. Akaky goes from doing the bare minimum to exist in the world, (through his work) to something more materialistic in the form of a new coat. The book talks about a "great enemy" to those who do not make enough money to withstand the cold frost in St. Petersburg. The overcoat is linked to this enemy (the cold winter) and represents the greater enemy of money and greed. Akaky's overcoat is worn out from constant usage throughout his life, but perhaps is metephorically worn out from battles against conformity in society. Akaky knows the value of money, as shown through his careful calculations and use of his bare 400 roubles, and so feels absurd in having to spend money on material goods. However, Akaky's "whole existence...seemed now to somehow become fuller," when he gets a new overcoat, and his own vanity emerges, erasing the orignial simplicty of his life previous to the coat. Akaky receives recognition and is showered with congratulations by coworkers and people who never gave him the time of day before. The acquisition of the new overcoat leads Akaky to "indulge" in more frivilous affairs, because of his immediate yet temporary acceptance into society. The praise and recognition is only momentary as people "for[get] all about him and his overcoat." This reveals the fact that people are never satisfied with what they have, and are constantly searching for more, wrapped up in consumerism. The idea that materialism can make you cold happens to Akaky in the most literal sense when he is robbed of his precious coat. I believe that Gogol is trying to demonstrate the dangers of materialism through the humbling tale of The Overcoat. Perhaps when we all stop trying to live up to society's expectancies, can true happiness and complacency be found within one's life, devoid of outer influences.

Skaz

Before lecture the other day I had no idea about the term "Skaz". The professor described it as "a particularly oral form of narrative that uses dialect but doesn't use quotation marks." Instead the narrators words are just integrated into the text. Gogol's story clearly uses skaz, but I was curious about why he decided to write the story this way.

Even in the first line of the story, the narrator is using his own voice. "In the department.....but perhaps it is just as well not to say in which department." It is a very casual form of writing, and allows the author to make comments about all of his characters. I think Gogol wanted to use this form because it adds humor to his story. If the story was just describing this rather lame character whos only love in life is copying and his overcoat, I think the story would be rather dull. But by having a narrator make comments about Akaky, it allows the story to have more humor. Even when he first describes Akaky, it is clear how the narrator feels about him. He describes him as "a Civil Servant who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as in any way remarkable."It allows for an outside person to give their opinion and help guide the opinion of the reader. Especially by not having quotations, and by having the words integrated into the text, it gives the narrator a personality and a clear point of view.

Why Pity Akaky?

Akaky Akakyevich Bashmachkin is a character that immediately evokes pity from readers. His job is not meaningless but would, by most, be considered uninteresting; his coworkers disrespect him, and the very city of St. Petersburg seems to be out to get him. Even the narrator seems to wish he had someone a bit more captivating to tell us about.

None of this matters to Akaky though. Sure, when the young clerks games begin to interfere with his work he gets upset pleading them to “leave [him] alone.” This seems to me to be more about the fact that they have caused him to make a mistake in his work, and not necessarily because of any emotional pain.

Akaky Akakyevich is a simple man. He requires nothing but the labor of his own hands to make him happy. He found a job that created for him “a multifarious and pleasant world of his own.” He is content with “his cabbage soup” and “a piece of beef with onions” if that’s what a job copying provides him. He is not a lusting man, nor one who has bitten by the social bug, but one who loves his work so much that a night spent copying is better than both women and parties.

Unlike many men who wish to increase in rank, he is satisfied with his rather low-paying job, becoming greatly disturbed when offered the opportunity to move up. This is typically regarded as a failing, as if lacking ambition makes Akaky less than human. However, it seems to me that this job is not one that would be coveted by many, so if there is a man who actually likes doing this rather mundane work, who are we to pry him from it?

I, myself, know people who are passionate for the arts but become doctors or lawyers because that’s where the money lies. These people may come to find their jobs decent, purposeful and providing, but will they ever get as much enjoyment from their jobs as Akaky gets from his?

Akaky Akakyevich may not live up to our standards of a well-rounded human being, but until the city wages war on him, he is a man who cares not of what others think of him, living only to do what he loves. In this way, perhaps we can all learn a little something from this character that enjoys the simple things in life.

Obsession and Piety

Sympathy is something that people have a hard time lending Akaky Akakyevich Bashmachkin, the tragic character in Nicolai Gogol’s The Overcoat. True, Akaky’s mundane personality seems to be a perfect fit for his mundane life, but there is obviously something greater, something not explained in the short story, that is afflicting his personality.

Akaky’s life seems to be centralized on one thing at all times. The problem with this story is that that one thing always seems to bring him joy, whether it is his dull job or his brand new overcoat. This is why people have a hard time feeling sorry for Akaky in the least bit. Clearly, his obsessive characteristics are unhealthy – no one should be that focused on one thing at all times. And it is almost as if Akaky doesn’t really care for his obsessions – he just uses them to pass the time. This is demonstrated in his actions after he buys his overcoat. Instead of going home after work and continue working like he normally did, he simply “enjoyed his dinner immensely and did no copying at all afterwards.”

But then again, I never lived nor was I raised in the same conditions as Akaky. I have never had to eat cabbage soup, live off of 400 roubles a year, nor was I predestined to live the same exact life as my father. I was given so many opportunities and was always encouraged to excel. Although I am forever grateful for this, Akaky seems even more so, because of his discrete, yet powerful faith in God. So its not just good fortune that can drive someone to religion. In Akaky’s case, it was receiving “whatever Providence happened to send at the time, flies and all” that gave him such strong convictions.

And this is what it all comes down to – just having the bare necessities to be alive and healthy is enough to be happy. Unfortunately for Akaky, his personality had been far too damaged for him to realize that there are more important things in life than an overcoat.

Who's the Villain?

In most stories there’s a villain and a hero, or perhaps in this case just a protagonist. Clearly in this story, Akaky is the latter. It is not as clear to me who plays the villain. My original thoughts were that the very important person was the villain, or perhaps Akaky’s coworkers who bullied him, or perhaps the inhumanity of a majority of the characters in general. After rethinking it, I’ve concluded that perhaps the true villain in this story is the city, St. Petersburg. The city includes the buildings, the people, the climate and just the entire setting in general.

The clear division between rich and poor that exists defines the nature of the people who live there and the importance they place on class and status. The weather works to perpetuate this divide between wealth and poverty. The cold climate enhances the effects of poverty on the lower class. From the beginning of the story when Akaky’s appearance is described, we are told that there was "nothing we could do about it: it [was] all the fault of the St. Petersburg climate." From the start we can see the foreboding nature of St. Petersburg and the toll it takes on its inhabitants. We later learn that the climate is even more threatening due to his low income. The winter itself caused this entire chain of events to unfold. We know that the "there is in St. Petersburg a great enemy of all those who receive a salary of four hundred roubles a year" which is “none other than [the] northern frost” and the poor are "left utterly defenseless."

Even when Akaky has something to defend himself against the climate, the division in the city takes him far from his home to attend the clerk’s party. This provides the circumstances for his coat to be stolen and later for his walk in the cold. His home and neighborhood is described as dreary, dark and dangerous and the "immense square…that looked to him like a dreadful desert" that he must cross seems to foreshadow his fate. Even in death, he is ultimately left without aid, alone and wandering in the dark searching for a "glimmer of light" at the other end of this desert. The entire city in general seems out to get him even though he is nobody special. Oddly enough, his position as nobody special is a result of the hierarchy and nature of the city.

Necessity to protect yourself from the St. Petersburg Cold

My intentions as I read Gogol’s work, The Overcoat, was to finding the underlying connection with Akaky’s overcoat and the short story’s criticism of capitalism. Upon careful examination, I realized that Akaky bought a brand new overcoat out of an external necessity. Due to the St. Petersburg’s blistering winters, Akaky’s environmental and social influences generated a need for Akaky to dispose of the old and improve upon with the new; a key component that fuels capitalism. It is apparent that Akaky was generally content with his complacency in life and had no desire to climb the social hierarchy structured from the capitalistic/governmental system of St. Petersburg. However, the capote was not suitable for life in St. Petersburg, and Akaky was no longer suitable for St. Petersburg life.

And so, an upgrade was due, and Akaky’s grounded complacency in life has been shook. The main obstacle that Akaky faced in his ordeal was his lack of monetary funds, and it required sacrifices to achieve his purchase. Capitalistic society constantly reflects the trials and tribulations each individual undergoes to maintain a suitable living, especially upon the lower classes. The loss of the overcoat, although minimal in consequence, completely took away Akaky’s livelihood, which parallels the crushing consequences that the lower classes consistently face. Minute injustices dramatically affect the lives of the lower class whereas the upper echelon of society remains copacetic in their situation.

Gaping differences depicted by the narrator during Akaky’s travel to the middle class neighborhood also reflects the prominent gap in status, lifestyle, and general happiness of the contrasting classes. Upon his travel, he notes that there is very little activity, lighting, and life in between the lower class and middle class neighborhoods. Upon entering the middle class neighborhoods, Akaky witnesses bright lighting, unseen beauty, and an amiable air of happiness. His presence among the middle class is an attribution to his new overcoat, a sign of his rising status in Capitalism. Unfortunately, as capitalism has it, wealth much like the overcoat, can be stripped away without any care except from the victim. The overcoat is a necessity of capitalism, yet the St. Petersburg winter has no sense of morality or equity, all actions are merely a product of its society.

Why No Name?

In class, we discussed the relationship between someone’s name and his or her character/personality. Akaky’s mother contemplates over a myriad of names, most which she deems as queer and dismisses. Eventually, she settles on naming her new baby after his father. From the get-go, it seems as if Akaky was destined for a life in the shadow, being invisible. Gogol devotes a full paragraph to the explanation of how Akaky got his name. Perhaps he means to illustrate that a name is an indication of a person's character.

What I found ironic was that Gogol gives meticulous and sometimes unnecessary details of his characters but does not give us the name of the Very Important Person. He goes through the trouble of informing us that the tailor “was known simply by his Christian name of Grigory, and had been a serf belonging to some gentleman or other; he began calling himself Petrovich only after he had obtained his freedom…” Sure, it is great to know that the tailor used to be called Grigory but that information isn’t all that relevant to the plot. Even Gogol himself says “we really ought not to waste much time over this tailor.”

But shouldn't the Very Important Person, the most powerful man in the story, at least be given a proper name? You would think that since he alone had the power to find Akaky’s overcoat that Gogol would tell us his surname. But perhaps by not naming him, Gogol places importance on the unimportant people in society. He might have wanted those in the upper class to take notice of the hardships and challenges that the civil servants face daily. Or maybe Gogol wanted the Very Important Person to represent the upper class as a whole. Although the Very Important Person is a man of power, we find out through the story that he acts very much like those under him. He pretends to be too preoccupied with work to see Akaky, but in reality, he is enjoying a cigar in his comfortable chair. The fact that no one knows what exactly the Very Important Person’s job is further raises the question of how much power he actually has. Maybe Gogol wants to point out how those in authority aren’t that powerful to begin with. For whatever reason, the absence of the Very Important Person’s name got me thinking.

Not My Exact Opposite

I’ll start off with a humorous comparison. “When and how he entered the department, and who appointed him, no one could remember. However much the directors and chiefs of all kinds were changed, he was always to be seen in the same place, the same attitude, the same occupation…” This quote reminds me of Milton Waddams from the movie Office Space. He worked in the same position and no one really knew who he was. He stopped receiving his paycheck, but it was because he had been fired five years before and no one told him. Milton Waddams enjoyed his job of collating as much as Akaky in “The Overcoat” enjoyed copying. (It was not stressed in such a depressing tone, but the comparison still stands.) Milton had the red Swingline stapler that “didn’t bind up as much,” his perfect familiar office, and the work he knew so well. Both characters were made fun of.
I did not feel sorry for Akaky until his overcoat got stolen. He felt secure and at home copying. His life was complete when he did it; it was his passion. People like Akaky, attached to one thing only and having not experienced any other part of life, usually lead a very upsetting life but are happy to lead it. I would not tear Akaky away from his copying in hopes of befriending him with some other hobby or person. Doing so would only hurt him. Leave Akaky to be as he is.
I, at one point in my life, was like Akaky. As a child, my least unpleasant punishment in school was writing standards or definitions. I did not enjoy the words, but loved the way my pen felt on my paper and in my hand. Akaky, similar to this, enjoyed some letters more than others but still felt the same way I did about the physical act of writing.

Power Hungry-- It's Just Human Nature

"His usual conversation with any of his subordinates was saturated with strictness and consisted almost entirely of three phrases: 'How dare you sir? Do you know who you're talking to sir? Do you realise who is standing before you sir?' Still, he was really a good fellow at heart, was particularly pleasant with his colleagues and quite obliging too; but his new position went to his head. Having received the rank of general he got all confused and was completely nonplussed and did not know what to do. In the presence of a man equal to him in rank, he was just an ordinary fellow, and in many ways even a far from stupid fellow; but whenever he happened to be in company with men even one rank lower than he, he seemed to be lost..."
What could make a man turn into a monster? If you have ever heard about the Stanford Prison Experiment then you know it is power. If you haven't taken psychology or don't know about the Stanford Prison Experiment let me give you a little background information. Dr. Phillip Zimbardo wanted to look at human nature, specifically how people react to being prisoners and prison guards. The experiment was scheduled to last two weeks but was prematurely ended (they stopped they experiment on the sixth day) because the experiment got out of control fast. The psychology researchers who were conducting the study fell into their roles so completely that they began acting like the prison regulators they were portraying. The prison guards and prisoners who were all male, middle-class, healthy college students had become their roles-their personal identities, the people who they were before the experiment seemed to vanish. The prisoners were suffering extreme emotional stress and depression as the end of the first week approached. The prison guards had become so cruel and invented ways to humiliate and torture their prisoners. They were given power and ran with it.
In Gogol's "The Overcoat" the Very Important Person is given power when he is promoted and his whole personality shifts. The passage on page 261 immediately reminded me of the effect being put into a role of power can do to a person. If you listen to the interviews conducted after the experiment the prison guards were horrified. They had not known they were capable of such cruelty. It took only a few days for their power to go to their heads entirely and the experiment became reality. It was no longer examining role playing and recording data it was as if they were living in an alternate universe. In this passage you can see the power went to VIP's head, the way Dr Zimbardo showed is human nature. The VIP who as the author says "was really a good man at heart" became so wrapped up in being the rank of general that he felt it was his job to always exert his authority over his "subordinates." He could not go a "little too far" and risk those below him seeing him as a friend by conversing with them. No, it was much safer in his mind to separate himself- change who he once was- and maintain his position. "His new position went to his head" as he alienated himself from those around him.
This passage speaks powerfully of human nature using diction and long, involved syntax. The sentences are long with many commas and semicolons. The effect is largely to mirror the confusion that the new position brings to the VIP. All his life prior he had not felt a need to act this way-to place himself above others and keep his conversations "saturated with strictness."
Human nature at its worst cant be observecd clearly in this passage within a story that largely speaks on human nature as a whole. The story itself speaks on anonymity, materialism, and the effect of power-or the lack of it. Akaky could be compared to the prisoners, who lose a part of themselves as they are subjected to the control of the prison guards. VIP lets power go to his head while Akaky allows a lack of power and control his whole life go to his head. Maybe the reason Akaky broke down when he was asked to copy a document where he made some changes was that he was so used to being given only the simplest of tasks to complete that he lost complete confidence in himself. The effect is a seriously depressed, confused, and misunderstood character. In class we talked of how content he was with his life- but maybe Akaky just didn't know anything more, anything better. Maybe it was simply an acceptance of what he must do rather than an enjoyment of his simple lifestyle.
If you want to read more about the Stanford Prison Experiment this link is really good. www.prisonexp.org

Ghosts of Akaky's Past

I think it’s funny (not funny haha, but funny in a paradoxical sense) that only in death does Akaky affect society. Think about it: Akaky is virtually invisible throughout his lifetime, excluding a very brief hiccup of confidence that comes with his new overcoat. “Scraps of melon rinds and other such articles” fall from windows onto the rim of his hat because people don’t notice him walking below. At work, he avoids any ostentatious behavior, even allowing his co-workers to “strew bits of paper over his head, calling them snow.” Akaky makes a profession of copying documents, not really adding anything innovative to society. He doesn’t marry, he never has children. He walks through life leaving no marks to trace his footprints.

Akaky paradoxically lives more like a ghost in life than he does in death. I’ll look at what ghosts “should” be in a traditional sense to prove my point. Ghosts are supposed to be invisible, translucent at the very least. Ghosts are flighty, presumably unable to manifest themselves in a tangible way. Ghosts should not feel strong desires nor experience physical weakness coldness (because they’re dead). Ghosts are merely an image—a copy if you will—of what someone was in life. Akaky—following its traditional definition—is a ghost in life. That is, he’s nearly invisible to other living beings, he makes no tangible impact on society, he has no strong desires; he is basically just a copy of his father, for whom Akaky was named.

In a sense, Akaky isn’t really alive until he dies. It takes pneumonia and a burial to arouse something in him, something that makes him want to make an impact on society. Even though this impact is an intimidating rampage on anybody with a warm overcoat.

materialism kills

It is clear through the story that Akaky is a civil servant, whose job is to copy.  "Outside this copying nothing seemed to exist for him" (237). He basically lives a life of emptiness. He does not care for money, food, clothes, social life, women, love, friendships, hygiene or anything except for copying.  Once Akaky buys the overcoat, it seems as if he is finally excited about something. It seems like something other than copying has value in his life. The day he bought the overcoat was  "one of the greatest days in Akaky's life " (251).  At this point of the story I felt like he finally seemed human. He valued something and walked around smiling and feeling happy. At work everyone congratulated him and someone even offered to throw a party for him. All this positive attention comes into his life just because of a new overcoat. Now what this overcoat really is, is just a piece of clothing that should not have any actual significant value other than keeping you warm. The amount of happiness and pleasure it gave to Akaky is more than normal.  A paradox exists in that that same overcoat that finally changed Akaky's life just a little bit for the better, actually led him to his death.  The overcoat can be representing materialism and how sometimes people put so much importance on materialistic things that don't have any true value in life or reality.  I mean as everyone said in class the most important thing was that he was content with his life that consisted of nothing except for copying. I think Gogol is trying to emphasize through this story that the important things in life are the things you do and if you are happy doing them.  Life is too short to waste time and energy on materialistic things that can be stolen or taken away. The pleasure that Akaky felt while copying could never be taken away from him. When he got the new overcoat the narrator says "He enjoyed his dinner immensely and did no copying at all afterwards, not one document did he copy, but just indulged himself a little by lying down on his bed until dusk" (253).  For the first time we read that he doesn't care to copy during his leisure time. He abandons the real significant thing in his life for something material and eventually dies because of it. 

What's in a name?

"Bother," said the poor woman, "what queer names! I've never really heard such names! Now if it had only been Varadat or Varukh, but it would be Trifily and Varkhassy!" Another page was turned and the names in the calendar were Pavsikakhy and Vakhtissy. "Well," said the mother, "I can see that such is the poor innocent infant's fate. If that is so, let him rather be called after his father. His father was Akaky, so let the son be Akaky too." It was in this was that he came to be called Akaky..."
"...We have told how it had come about at such length because we are anxious that the reader should realize himself it that it could not have happened otherwise, and that to give him any other name was quite out of the question."

Nikolai Gogol, "The Overcoat," from The Overcoat and other tales of good and evil, pg. 253.



I've chosen this early excerpt from The Overcoat because I've been interested, for a while now, in the idea of the name and its importance to the both the character and the plot of a story. Here we have an unnamed woman trying to somehow pick the name of her newborn child from a rather sorry set of options. While we already know who our protagonist is, what this particular digression from the story (and the others that follow) does is to somehow novelize the short story genre in a way that it straddles the boundaries of both novel and short story, and contains both the extended narrative of generations, events, day-to-day, and the specialized specific narrative of a single character that is the short story. Or one could just say that's the way Russians do it.
I'm making this argument not because I want to overcomplicate a relatively simple text, but because it is Dostoevsky, a novelist over and over again (but not alien to the SS) who recalls Gogal as the one who laid the foundations for the rest of Russian literature. But to come back to the excerpt here, what do we do with this long-winded name game, when all we're really concerned with is an overcoat? There are a couple of things that come to mind: First, the history of his name is the history of the character. It's here where I'd like to think about the idea of repetition and the way the second time something comes about, it's deteriorated and a lesser, worser version of the first. Later in the century, Marx will hit upon this in a profound manner when he writes the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, a book that opens with the sentence, "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."Tragedy moves the human to tears, possibly regret and forgiveness. I'm not so sure what farce does. And certainly, Akaky, our man, is arguably till the very end of the plot, in different ways, a farcical character.
I now want to circle back to the original teaser I put out there-- is Gogol playing with the idea of a novel? Of course, The Overcoat is by no means a novel, but I would like to think that Gogol uses the various extended personal histories in the story to somehow make it speak beyond its genre. Akaky alone cannot be a protagonist, and his story must come with those of others. Perhaps the answer to my question, then, is surprisingly, no. This is not a short story flirting with the idea of the novel, but maybe the short story flirting with the idea of short and cryptic narrative... and making the reader go along with it.