Did we all come from Gogol’s Overcoat or his Nose?

Which is the true Gogol? The humane critic of the social condition hoping to evoke our outrage and sympathy for the downtrodden, or the comical humorist laughing with us and at us and our human vanity? How does one reconcile the author of both of these stories?

Just for a change of pace -limit yourself to a MAXIMUM of 250 words!!!   Please!!!

34 thoughts on “Did we all come from Gogol’s Overcoat or his Nose?

  1. Patrick O'Neill

    In an attempt to reconcile the nature of the author behind these two stories, I think Gogol is simply mocking the reader. I have no problem in accepting that fact when it comes to “The Nose” because it is clear that Gogol intends to parody the vanity possessed by many people in society. However, Gogol is much more crafty and indirect with the “The Overcoat.” Initially, one cannot really take a story about a rather unremarkable man with a name somewhere along the lines of “Shitty Shithead” seriously. However, as was certainly the case with me, Gogol is able to bring the reader to eventually sympathize with Akaky, although it had at first seemed ridiculous given the circumstances. About midway through the story, though, Gogol remarks that “it’s really impossible to get inside a man’s soul and learn all he thinks.” Later on, he makes another similar remark as a substitute for not delving deeper into his character’s thoughts. I found both of these remarks quite deceiving on Gogol’s part and think they give the reader a false sense of security in feeling sorry for Akaky. Although Gogol repeatedly assures the reader that it is difficult to learn how others are feeling and impossible to know everything, he clearly knows how his writings are affecting the reader and most likely relishing in the thought that such a ridiculous story could draw such sympathy from his audience.

  2. Kara Shurmantine

    While the premise, tone, and ultimate conclusion of these two pieces may be different, they produce the same effect: a critique, whether humorous or tragic, of nineteenth-century Russia’s urban clerical hierarchy and its cruelty, falsity, vanity, and dumb pomposity. Collegiate Assessor Kovalev, with his pretentious title of “Major,” is intimidated by his nose’s position of State Councillor and its “gold-braided, high-collared uniform, buckskin breeches, and cockaded hat”—as if the nose’s apparent bureaucratic rank could somehow override the fact that it is, after all, his nose. The “prominent personage” of “The Overcoat,” with all his false, petty pretenses to importance and the deference his inferiors pointlessly show him, recalls Kovalev’s repeated name-dropping of the prominent personages he is acquainted with, which he does no less than four times in the story. Both Bashmatchkin and Kovalev must traverse the endlessly convoluted and tortuous maze of Russia’s bureaucratic hierarchy, the needless complication of which results in the former’s death and the latter’s amusing fluster. What is the point of all these titular councilors, actual privy councilors, secretaries and clerks and the rest of them? Isn’t all this hierarchy, these imperial civil service rankings and titles, these systems of deference and superiority and inferiority, a petty and needless human construction that causes more suffering than expedition? Gogol phrases it best: “There is nothing more irritable than departments, regiments, courts of justice, and, in a word, every branch of public service.”

  3. Elise Hanks

    It is interesting that with “The Nose” we are eager to explain it. Popular analyses include a castration complex (it is closely tied to his affairs of masculinity- his rank and women), a dream, and simply an absurd story meant to force the reader to suspend disbelief. This clever writing is indeed interesting- who is to say, however, if Gogol meant it to have any extraordinary meaning at all?

    As for “The Overcoat”, this story was incredibly predictable and trite. One is left with a thought to be kind to others, to treat them as one wishes to be treated. Regardless of any underlying satire, it doesn’t appear to add up to much more. Whether or not this story is social commentary is really irrelevant as it clearly completes its moral agenda. It is also unnecessarily long for such a tale- and I am left to conclude that Gogol was low on his funds so he made it unnecessarily long so as to make more money.

    I am hoping that there is something beneath these stories other than dull social satire and commentary. I don’t see the need to dither over which style is in fact Gogol’s… it seems silly to think that one can’t use different authorial voices and tones. I hope to get more insight about all these because I am at the moment very disappointed.

  4. Kaylen Baker

    Gogol has proved to me that learning about the author truly enhances the meaning of the work. I would have believed that Gogol’s primary goal is to create stories mocking the regulated positions one can hold in society, as if a title can determine a human’s inner worth. Gogol also mocks materialism and vanity, and even logic. His description of the nose are hilarious, because all we knew about the nose was it had a pimple on it, yet Kovalyov recognizes it on a State Councilor in the middle of St. Petersburg and has policemen out looking for this nose, and even the barber knows its owner immediately. It’s not clear if the State Councilor is just a nose, or a man with an extra nose, or a man with the wrong nose… but this ambiguity is precisely why we laugh and keep reading.

    Now I believe Gogol’s humor is actually frosting to cover up the darker, critical messages he feels obligated to write – few would eat up his stories without the humor, and it’s a part of his nature. But Gogol is a realist, evident in the descriptive images he invokes, especially when describing Akaky. He advocates for a better life for the lower class in Russia. But later Gogol had some sort of slow, mental breakdown. He feared losing his soul because of his literature, was depressed… he even burned some of Dead Souls, explained the Devil did it as a joke. He died 9 days later. Gogol appears to have been a silent sufferer, too witty and funny to hide behind his pain, and too caring to leave the world as it was. This is pretty serious stuff.

  5. Jennifer Ridder

    I agree with Elise. Sure, we love to explain the absurdity of “The Nose” as it goes against our nature to try and not make sense of such ridiculousness. One wishes that we could just let it stand as senselessness and yet we are forced to interpret it as satire of Russian society. With “The Overcoat” I too agree that it is a trite method of telling a moral tale. Again, Gogol tries to cover his agenda in social commentary but perhaps it is just a drawn out story of proper moral conduct. Nonetheless, Gogol ensures that both stories critique the Russian society. Gogol, through both fantasy and realism creates satirical stories out of absurdities. In “The Nose”, it is pure fantasy that a nose could walk off a persons face and the same is true of having a ghost of Akkakiy. Through the missions of Kovalev and Akkakiy in retrieving their missing items, a nose and a cloak respectively, Gogol satirizes Russian society with a particular emphasis on class and rank. “The Overcoat” clearly demonstrates provincial bureaucracy as well as the frivolity of material wealth. There is no real reason for Akkakiy to be so taunted by those of higher rank. “The Nose” also addresses issues of social class and social climbing in the story. As a collegiate assessor, Kovalev is himself a minor official intent on advancing his career and takes great pride in his status as a bureaucrat, he even insists on being called Major. Soon after his nose is restored, Kovaliev applies for promotion to a higher-level position. Kovalev is clearly on a mission to not only find his nose but achieve rank. In a funny moment of the story, his anxiety about his social standing is further demonstrated through his interaction with the nose at the cathedral; because the nose is dressed in the garb of a higher-level government administrator, Kovaliev is unsure of how to address him. Here Gogol is clearly using humor to satirize the Russian class system. In “The Overcoat” he uses sympathy for Akkakiy. Yet we still can’t believe what he is writing as both are born of unrealistic settings, so one questions what we are indeed supposed to take from the stories. Are they moral codes or just humor at the expense of society?

  6. Brett Basarab

    Neither of these stories is a critique meant to incite outrage towards the social condition in Russia. While both stories seem humorous and satirical, Gogol wrote them purely for the sake of humor, and did not intend to present a strong message about societal issues in Russia. The stories, in the end, are not serious. Gogol set out to make his readers laugh, not to make them question the state of society. Social norms and issues of class may serve as the backdrop to both stories, but they do not serve as Gogol’s target.

    “The Nose” is meant to be funny and nothing much more; the story is utterly ridiculous and absurd. At first glance, it may seem to be a social commentary. Kovalev’s high social status causes him to be distraught over losing his nose, and he fears most for his relations with others of his class. However, any person, high or low class, should be more than distraught over losing a nose; Gogol’s choice to mock on a pompous, conceited major simply makes the story funnier.

    “The Overcoat” is slightly more serious because we can more easily sympathize with Akakiy, whose situation is a bit more realistic. Here, Gogol, mocks a bit on bureaucracy. The prominent personage scolds Akakiy for not following the absurd number of steps to report his stolen coat. Ultimately, however, the satire is all in good fun. Gogol is not truly outraged at law enforcement but instead just wants to poke fun at it. The absurd ending, with Akakiy coming back as a ghost, reminds us that “The Overcoat” is just another fun, enjoyable story meant to make us laugh.

  7. Ben Tabb

    I have to disagree with Brett; I can’t see either of these stories, especially “The Overcoat” as being anything other than social commentaries. I can see how the nose could be considered nothing more than a comedy, for it is clearly very lighthearted, but I believe there is more to it than than. The absurdity of a nose gaining a higher class rank than it’s owner makes it difficult to see it as anything other than a satire of rankings in Russia at the time. Kovalev wanting to always be referred to as “major,” and his constant reminders of who he is acquainted with (with their positions in parentheses following), are clear shots at his vanity. Yes, they make the story funnier, but I don’t see how they could be interpreted as anything other than criticisms of the characters and their society.

    “The Overcoat” is even more clearly a social commentary. I don’t see how it could be considered “another fun, enjoyable story meant to make us laugh.” As Elise pointed out, it’s quite long, which seems to be necessary for one to further sympathize with Akakiy and understand just what he went through to get the overcoat, therefore making us more devastated when he loses it. I’ll be honest, I’m not entirely sure of the significance of his ghost returning, but for me the effect certainly wasn’t comical, nor did it make the rest of the story any less depressing. To me it’s clear that Gogol is criticizing the a society where people are judged for the coats they wear rather than their work or personality, the poor are oppressed and impoverished, the police force is overly bureaucratic and ineffective, and people’s importance is based on how well they humiliate those below them.

  8. Thomas Beyer Post author

    Dear Kaylen, Think of how many comedians meet a tragic death-is humor their way of hiding from enormous sadness? And you might want to watch on youtube Charlie Chaplin’s The Tramp.

  9. Hannah Wilson

    I do not believe that you can determine which of these stories represents “the true” Gogol without examining his life as a writer. Gogol lived most of his life doubting himself and his work and did not achieve much success until the end of his life. After reading a few biographies I quickly realized that both of his stories contained aspects of the “true” Gogol. Apparently, Gogol had a large nose, and quite possibly could have been very self conscious of it, like Kovalev was of the social implications of his nose. Akaki in The Overcoat was once promoted to a higher position however, after a day at his new job he found it too difficult and was transferred back to his old position. Gogol taught at a local university for about a year, however found it too difficult, skipped almost 2/3 of the lectures and was unable to administer the final exam.

    The only way that I can synthesize these two stories into one person would be a say that they each represent a different part of Gogol and that the “true” Gogol is very complex. Whoever this “true” Gogol is, he obviously is troubled by the role that appearances play in Russian society. Discussing the absurdity that Russians place on appearance by saying “without a nose a man is goodness knows what, neither fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring – he isn’t a respectable citizen at all!” and focusing on the joy and increased social standing Koralev experiences after he gets a news coat act, Gogol reminds to the reader that these things may not be as important as they think.

    Links to Gogol Biographies

    http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gogol.htm
    http://www.online-literature.com/gogol/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Gogol

  10. Ashley Quisol

    I do not find it at all hard to reconcile the other of both of these stories. First we have a comical story of a dislikable, self-righteous, man who has lost a non-vital part of his body which causes him great distress, not concerned about the purpose of the organ, but rather the social implications of its absence. On the other hand Gogol breaks our hearts, offering us the story of a pathetic, downtrodden man who lifts himself up, only to be robbed of his dear overcoat in the end.
    These two stories, though written with different styles, tones, and lessons, have a crucial element in common: they both portray aspects of the human condition at its most exaggerated. “The Nose,”(as mentioned in above blogs), shows us the potential vanity and arrogance of human beings. The reactions of Ivan and the “Major” to finding the missing nose were both ridiculous but understandable: Ivan’s first reaction was to get rid of it fearing the police, while the Major, after having found the nose, contemplated the different ways to discipline his rogue nasal apparatus.
    In “The Overcoat” the character is pitied, rather than arrogant, and the item that he looses is an overcoat rather than a nose, the first item being only worth its monetary value, while the second item is essentially irreplaceable. Despite the seeming disparity in the loss of a of these two items, the reader sympathizes so much more with the loss of the coat solely because of it’s owners tragic toil and demise. Both of these stories portray pieces of the essence of human nature and therefore it is very easy for me to accept that they were both written by Gogol.

  11. Lisa Eppich

    These stories are connected by a sense of the absurd and the nightmarish. Obviously the idea of a nose running around town is ridiculous, such that Gogol even laments that he doesn’t even know what to make of it. Akakiy is similar, the absurd only really coming with his death, and the police saying that they are going to “catch he corpse, alive or dead.” However, the measures Akakiy took for the new coat and how quickly it was lost would also be considered a “nightmare.” Both stories leave us wondering what to believe. They are both told in reported, official-sound speech, yet there are elements of the absurd in both of them: for Kovalev, so losing his nose was to him less a physical humiliation than his fear of being perceived as a lower rank, or even not a citizen at all without it, just as Akakiy is perceived differently with and without his coat. So, while we’re seemingly left to figure out whether or not there was a nose running around or if Petersburg police are going to “catch the corpse alive or dead,” Gogol’s point is that there is a terrifying reality to all of this absurdity, that people, in any time or society, can be this harshly judged or abused for physical and material reasons, and are easily cast aside by those of higher power. This is the idea of “laughter through tears,” that amusement both covers up and makes harsh reality easier to take.

  12. Casey Mahoney

    Having read each in Russian classes a few times already, I tried to read with “fresh eyes.” Now knowing Gogol’s biography, for instance, as a troublesome schoolboy with a talent for mimicry informs these satires as being humorous before socially activist. Regardless of how much personal insecurities led Gogol to perhaps sympathize with his characters, her certainly saw the silly ironies of individuals’ idiosyncrasies and faults.

    For the first time in our reading, and maybe the first time in Russian literature, readers have a very clear vision of the characters of Petersburg as believable people with depth. We’ve come from Karamzin’s overdone “man” and “woman” in “nature,” to real people in a cosmopolitan city, and Gogol’s writing gives us a thoroughly perceptive take on who lives there. Like Akakii comes out at night for the first time in years (=the Russian peasant seeing the goodness of a polity?), we see the aimlessly wandering crowds on the Nevskii as Kovalyov searches for his nose, we see the storekeepers, police clerks and inspectors, a maze of other civil servants, landladies, and the figures of feverish hallucinations, all of whom are the key components of a real Petersburg story.

    Gogol’s descriptions practically paint them as caricatures he’d have mocked as a boy, adding much of the humorous interest to the story. Indeed, many of these characters’ situations are a bit macabre, and Gogol recognizes this, yet I fail to find his primary motivation in pitying or attempting to pry deeper into the reasons of, or solutions for, the ills of empty, gilded society or flawed human nature.

    P.S. Did Akakii remind anyone else of Milton? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvGwr5wj8A8

  13. Stewart Moore

    While “The Nose” did appear to be more comedic than “The Overcoat”, I was left with a very similar idea of Russian society from both stories. “The Nose” seems absurd; after a person’s nose doesn’t disappear and become a ranking officer. Hpwever, I saw a social commentary in “the Nose” when I looked at the noseless Kovalyov. Where in “The Overcoat” we could easily distinguish high society by the exotic fur on the coats, “The Nose” seems to say something similar but in a very different manner. It is not the manner in which one dresses that elevates one in society, but conformity to society’s standards. Outdoing one another with more expensive materials is all well and good up to a point, because those of the aristocricy are expected to keep a certain level of behavior lest they e shunned.

    Gogol seems to be one of the first authors we have read who focuses on a lowly individual as a central character. Nowhere in our previous readings have I really been stuck with the details of poverty like I was here. Sure Poor Lisa also centers around a lower class peasant, but her social standing isn’t the main object of the story like it is in “The Overcoat.”

  14. Alexandra Boillot

    The true Gogol does not appear in one of the stories or the other. Rather, the true Gogol lies in the message that each contains and not in the polar opposite manners in which each story is written. After reading “The Nose,” finding the connection to “The Overcoat” was difficult until I reached the scene in which Akakiy tries to meet with the police about his jacket. The correlation between the two stories is the strong critique of the Russian bureaucracy. In “The Nose” the critique is there throughout the story by way of simply painting a picture of the impossibility to reach any of the officials due to their laziness and inefficiency. However, this is not shown so clearly in “The Overcoat” since there is a huge digression away from this point so that Gogol starts this story with a personal critique of public service. More than halfway through the story, the technique of condemning public service through the plot of the story is continued when Akakiy tries to find the police and then a “man of importance” to help him find his coat. In both stories, public officials are either unavailable due to their sleeping, eating, or visiting schedules, or are just completely useless.

    These two short stories strongly remind me of the Spanish story “Vuelva Usted Manana” (Return Tomorrow) by Mariano Jose de Larra. This story greatly resembles Gogol’s in that de Larra writes a biting criticism of Spanish bureaucracy, employing the same methods as Gogol: direct critique and critique through the plot.

  15. Matthew Lazarus

    Let’s hear it for believing in meaning. Did anyone else get the impression that the two Gogols weren’t all that different from one another? In each story I think Gogol is commenting on the fragility of humankind. We as readers are witnesses to the breakdowns and their subsequent (comical perhaps?) repercussions of Akakiy and Major Kovalev. I was feeling so happy for Akakiy when he started to make the money he needed through sacrifices in his life, until it all crashed and burned with the mugging. Major Kovalev had been building up his place in society and in his department for years. He had it made. Who would have thought a lost sensory organ could completely ruin a person like that? Gogol knew. The same way Akakiy was not expecting to be robbed, Kovalev sure as heck was not expecting to wake up without a nose, and I think this is a lesson to be gained from these stories – beware of the potential of the unexpected. Otherwise, both stories trashed Russian bureaucracy hardcore. Kara has already supplied the quotation that perhaps best captures Gogol’s stance on the issue, but come ON, practicing saying “What do you want?” in front of a mirror? Gogol also takes a shot at the directions and trends of the general Russian mindset, represented by the newspaper clerk on what to do with this story of the missing nose – “either for the instruction of our young, or as a matter of general interest.” Riiiidiculous.

  16. Catherine Ahearn

    I believe that although these stories play very differently upon the emotions of the reader, they are both centered around human vanity and the criticism of it. Both main characters are victims of it but in very different ways. In The Nose, Kovalev is unyieldingly preoccupied with social status and his reputation and barely considers the disappearance of his nose beyond how it will impact him socially. For these reasons the reader cannot help but believe that Koovalev deserves what he gets. On the other hand, in The Overcoat, Akaky Akakievich is a victim of the world’s vanity. The coat is first important to him because it is a necessity and if it were not for the prompts of his co-workers, he would not have suffered as a result of the new coat. One is able to reconcile the author of these two stories for two reasons: one being that they fundamentally deal with the same subject matter, and the second being that the narrator of both stories is metacognitive, or aware of his own authorship of the story we are reading.
    The “real” Gogol is hard to pin down, especially after only having read 2 short stories, however the “comical humorist” persona seems to be more suitable. I believe this is the case mainly because both stories mock the human tendency to be vain, but The Nose fails to evoke sympathy and outrage from its reader. He is a humane critic of the social condition, but with a mocking tone and cunning pen at hand.

    P.S. Thanks for the word limit.

  17. Zachary Harris

    I agree with Lisa that these stories have a similar bizarre and nightmarish style that makes it easy to see that they have the same author. In both stories the setting an almost real Saint Petersburg altered by a single completely bizarre supernatural element. I believe that Gogol places these supernatural elements in the story to show how outrageous the people are in the city.

    In reality, if a nose were to disappear from one’s face and be spotted running around the city, any who saw it would most likely question the reality they live in. Yet by making Kovalyov totally disregard this and instead only be horrified that this will ruin his social standing, Gogol is emphasizing the ridiculousness of Saint Petersburg society in which one’s sole care is their social status.

    The Overcoat features equally ridiculous characters. Akaky is totally fine with the awful life he has until he is awarded praise for the beautiful overcoat he purchases, and is then accepted as somewhat of an equal by his colleagues. When he loses this overcoat, he falls into total despair and is completely focused on retrieving his coat. This focus follows him after death as his ghost continues in this quest.

    I think Gogol’s message in both stories is that once someone is placed in Saint Petersburg society, they will place all their focus on maintaining and advancing their position within it, even after death or when facing the most bizarre and impossible situations

  18. Anonymous

    I really like everyone’s blogs above. There is not much in my margin-notes (apart from my repeated question: “ON DRUGS?”) that hasn’t been said. Comedy, social injustices, absurdity, sympathy, vanity, rank, etc…
    When I first read the two stories, I thought (and hoped) that “The Overcoat” was a better representation of the work of the “True Gogol.” It was sympathetic to a poor, downtrodden man. “The Nose”, however humorous, seemed to have no real purpose beyond its humor. However, if we are to trust wikipedia, Gogol may have actually identified more with the Major character in “The Nose,” than with the righteous themes of the overcoat.
    According to Wiki, Gogol himself was “marked by a painful self-consciousness and boundless ambition.” Is this not a good description of the Major in the nose? If this is the case, can your arguments, Kaylen, Patrick, and others, that “The Nose” is merely mocking the wealthy, vain, bureaucrats hold? Is Gogol really mocking himself?
    I also remember vaguely from my Russian history class’s discussion of Dead Souls that Gogol was not as interested in the plights of the serfs and poor as his work suggested. (Wasn’t the second part of Dead Souls less focused on social injustices?) Maybe I just made that up.
    Thought the whole ghost bit at the end of the overcoat was a bit much. You all should read Martin Cruz Smith’s “Stalin’s Ghost.” I mean come on, Stalin’s ghost (ie the ghost of the General Secretary of the Communist Party) on a subway or a crazy man stealing overcoats?

  19. Sophie Clarke

    So I fail at blogging. Anonymous is once again me. (Sophie) Also, because i like number more than words, thought you guys would be interested that the word limit thing has solved our problem of one upping eachother. If you plot our word counts against our posting position, and do a simple regression you can see that less than 5% of the variablity of our posting size can be explained by our posting position. (ie. we are all less ambitiously crazy, paranoid, and competitive with a word limit). Thank you Prof. Beyer.

  20. Harry Morgenthau

    Most wonderful comedy is grounded in truth. The most successful comic sketches or performances are the ones that we can clearly see the elements of in our daily lives. Comedy aggrandizes and plays on these small societal quirks so that we can see them more clearly and begin to understand them more fully. It can often be difficult for us to recognize our own flaws, but when put through the lens of comedy and the absurd, they can appear readily.
    For Gogol, I think it is fair to say that he is writing on multiple levels. First, there is the lowest level of clear comic humor – for the simple 19th century Russian reader, the stories could be read only on this level and enjoyed. They are amusing, inventive and silly. But for a more educated, careful reader, there is also a cynical social comment underneath. The characters of “the Nose” are painfully self-absorbed, to the point where they can barely communicate with each other. By writing his stories in this way, Gogol could effectively appeal to both the masses and to the intelligentsia at the same time. Even from strictly a sales perspective this is a brilliant stroke. The real genius of these stories is that they can be enjoyed equally on different levels.
    Anyway, would we really still be reading these stories today if they were nothing to them but base comedy?

  21. Susanna Merrill

    The stories seem to have in common that they lash out at the unsatisfactory world through the use of the absurd. The impression of Gogol that I get from these two stories is that the author cares about people, and the world, and that this great concern explains the depth of his disappointment and even anger when the world doesn’t live up to his ideals. These distinctively unromantic stories seem like the retaliation of a constantly disappointed romantic against a relentlessly prosaic world.
    I don’t really think that either of these works is a measured social criticism, at least not fully. Much of the absurdity seems to be mainly for its own sake, as when the nose shows up in a loaf of bread, or when some totally irrelevant person is mistaken for the ghost of Akakii at the end of The Overcoat.
    This is not to say that Gogol’s caricatures of cruel or self-important human beings are not significant, just that the stories are not pure satire, at least not social satire in the sense of Voltaire’s Candide. Like pure satire, Gogol’s stories perform the function of protesting against reality as the author finds it; the method, however, is not so much holding up individual human types or institutions to ridicule (though, again, there is a lot of that), but undercutting our willingness to see reality, especially social reality, as rational. As Gogol insists in “The Nose,” in a plea for belief in a world different that the one we are urged to accept as unchanging in its laws, “Whatever anyone says, such [incongruous] things happen in this world; rarely, but they do.”

  22. Matthew Rothman

    Perhaps because I am paranoid, or perhaps because I am inclined to give canonical authors the benefit of the doubt, I tend to believe that in both “The Nose” and “The Cloak” Gogol laughs at his subject, his characters, his reader, and human vanity. The stories are delightfully absurd, farcical in their presentation and characterization, and filled with series of ludicrous events that are so obviously symbolic that the reader must wonder if they contain an additional, hidden interpretation that Gogol buried between the lines. That Gogol’s stories are satirical is obvious, at times to a painful degree, but I wonder whether Gogol intends the reader to question the criticism itself. Creating a sympathetic character who is ridiculed and marginalized at an inane government job is not a particularly difficult task; however, I believe that adding a thick layer of the absurd to such a story must serve some purpose in addition to making the reader laugh or roll his or her eyes.

    I can’t help but attempt to compare Gogol’s stories with Monty Python. I find both equally ridiculous, but I also tend to search for some agenda in something so offbeat. The result is that I must conclude Gogol is laughing at me (which is becoming a recurring theme in my readings of Russian literature). Perhaps the author expected readers like me to want to read more into his words than the humor and the readily apparent social morality, and the ultimate humor of his stories lies in his awareness of my frustration in attempting to lay something more complex on top.

  23. Adam Levine

    I am appalled by Elise’s reaction to these well-crafted and dense short stories – they are by no means “incredibly predictable and trite” and “dull social satire and commentary.” Gogol cleverly compares his piercing views of Russian society with his general vision of humanity and depicts the puzzle through surprisingly dark comedy. I not only sympathized with Akaky in “The Overcoat,” but I pitied him at the end (despite his revenge) while also laughing at the whole situation. This is not an easy task for an author, yet it proves a very effective to approach. After reading a story like “Poor Liza,” where the narrator clearly wishes the reader to cry along with him for Liza, I cannot imagine how Elise is so “disappointed” in Gogol’s complex layering of hilarity and despair. To reduce “The Overcoat” and “The Nose” to clichéd morals shows an inability to appreciate stylistic narration, variations on a popular theme, and enjoyable, exciting tales. While I do agree with Elise that reconciling the different “authorial voices” ultimately becomes a trivial consideration, I cannot fathom her frustration at such satirical genius. Bursting with absurdity, Marxism, Max Weber’s theories of bureaucracy, and fascinating linguistic choices, these stories reveal Gogol’s niche in Russian literature, and even Jennifer, who agrees with Elise, ends her post with questions that begin to deconstruct the texts. To achieve sadness through excessive sentimentality is a linear process; to achieve desperation through comedy is something altogether. Gogol obviously knew what it was.

  24. Alicia Wright

    Absurdity and its functions, whether grounded in realistic social commentary or believable detail, is part of Gogol’s ironic agenda here. I agree that there is not much difference between these two stories. I honestly think any person grasping for realistic handholds here is just getting it all wrong. The stories are not trite; I agree with Adam’s basic reaction. However, I do think that “reconciling authorial voices” is crucial to understanding the author’s take, motivation, and material for the construction of such apparently differing stories. Not much need to leap straight to biography, either – it’s in the text. Gogol did have a very specific agenda, whether it’s light satire (which mends the rift in above posts about social critiquing versus humor) or, I suppose, some random guy writing jibberish just to confuse 21st century readers. Gogol = satire. Hoorah.

  25. Gabriel G Suarez

    Both “The Nose” and “The Overcoat” are Gogol’s attempts at revealing us to ourselves. After having Lermontov depress me about our collective traits as humans, it was great to be able to laugh at ourselves for the same reasons. “The Nose” is among the funniest stories I’ve read in my life. How does a nose scowl?! Of course nothing is sacred to them! Noses don’t wear plumed hats! But at the same time, we see Kovlev genuinely concerned by this—of course he would be! Gogol is laughing with and at us because we’re vain; but at no point does he pretend he wouldn’t be as concerned, as well.

    I have less to say about “The Overcoat,” I think it carried roughly the same message, taken to a moral conclusion (treat others . . .) but it was less funny and felt less self-aware. In short, “The Overcoat” was a perfectly good allegory, while “The Nose,” to me, was both valuable and hilarious.

  26. Natalie Komrovsky

    I believe that Gogol is simultaneously mocking our human vanity and evoking sympathy for the downtrodden. I suppose I’ll start with the humorist part of Gogol, though there isn’t much to say-his writing is hilarious. He completely mocks human vanity through his absurd characters and situations that they get into, all because they’re chasing after something meaningless. Rank and status are of the utmost importance to these people, even though they aren’t terribly important. Kovalev is in distress over his nose, believing that he just can’t be accepted in high society without his nose. No one in the office accepts Akaky until he has a new overcoat, which they then fawn over him for. Gogol created these characters that value appearance and status instead of something more deep and meaningful.

    I also think that Gogol evokes sympathy for the downtrodden, simply by how he describes Akaky and how everyone else treats him. However, I do think that this was more of an aside than anything else. Most people would feel bad for a pathetic character like Akaky, and Gogol didn’t have to really work hard to evoke that sympathy.

Leave a Reply