logo

51 pages 1 hour read

George Saunders

A Swim in a Pond in the Rain: In Which Four Russians Give a Master Class on Writing, Reading, and Life

Nonfiction | Essay Collection | Adult | Published in 2021

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

“The Nose”Chapter Summaries & Analyses

“The Nose” Summary

“The Nose” is a story by Nikolai Gogol, written in 1836. It opens with a Petersburg barber named Ivan Yakovlevich, discovering a nose in his breakfast bread one morning. He “recognizes” the nose as belonging to one of his clients, a petty official named Kovalyov” (314). He gets into an argument of his wife, who accuses him of being careless with his barbering and demands that he dispose of the nose immediately. Ivan Yakovlevich attempts this several times, but always runs into acquaintances or suspicious officials. He finally drops the nose into the Neva river, and is apprehended by a policeman: “But here the whole episode becomes shrouded in mist, and of what happened subsequently nothing is known” (317).

The story then shifts to Kovalyov’s point of view. He awakens one morning to discover that his nose is missing. He confirms this in the mirror of a coffeehouse, and then goes into a church where he discovers his nose disguised as a high-ranking official: “He was wearing a gold-embroidered uniform with a big stand-up collar and doeskin breeches [...] From his plumed hat one could infer that he held the rank of a state councilor” (320). Kovalyov attempts to confront the nose, but the nose stonewalls him: “You are mistaken, my dear sir, I exist in my own right” (320).

Kovalyov goes to the house of the chief of police, but is told the chief is not at home—a polite 19th century way for the chief to decline to see the low-ranking and unimportant Kovalyov. Kovalyov next decides to put an advertisement in the classifieds section of the newspaper, but is politely refused by the official there, who tells him that such an advertisement would lower the standards of the paper. Kovalyov then visits the home of the district police inspector, who—annoyed that Kovalyov has called on him after dinner—dismisses both Kovalyov’s case and Kovalyov himself.

Kovalyov decides that his missing nose must be the fault of a woman named Mrs. Podtochina. He has declined to marry this woman’s daughter, and he believes that Mrs. Podtochina has put a curse on him as revenge. He writes her an angry letter, but when he receives a bewildered reply, he concludes that she is not responsible for his nose’s disappearance after all. An inspector then arrives at Kovalyov’s apartment, holding his missing nose, which was “intercepted” (335) while trying to leave town. Kovalyov is relieved and joyful, but soon discovers that he is unable to re-affix the nose to his face. He asks a doctor who lives in his building to help him, but the doctor concludes that the situation is hopeless.

The story about the missing nose has meanwhile spread all over the city of Petersburg. Many local charlatans take advantage of the rumor by claiming to offer unique vantages of the escaped nose; only a few citizens protest the story’s ridiculousness. One morning, Kovalyov awakens to discover that his nose is back on his face. He is restored to his happiness and sanity, and becomes like his old self, only more so: “And thereafter Major Kovalyov was always seen in good humor, smiling, running after absolutely all the pretty ladies” (347). The story ends on a note of bemusement, its omniscient narrator declaring that “this is something I can’t understand” (347).

“The Door to the Truth Might be Strangeness: Thoughts on ‘The Nose’” Summary and Analysis

Saunders argues that the strangeness of “The Nose” ultimately reflects reality. He notes that even ostensibly realistic fiction, like that of Tolstoy or Chekhov, is heightened and distorted: “But as we’re seeing, realism isn’t all that real” (349), which means we accept the reality of a surreal story like “The Nose” as long as its “internal logic” makes sense (350).

The oddity of “The Nose” lies not only in its surreal events, but in the way that these events are narrated: “Gogol’s prose, compared to Chekhov’s or Tolstoy’s, feels a little clunky, graceless, rambling. It’s strangely inexact and [...] reaches odd conclusions” (354). However, this apparent gracelessness is by design—Gogol’s omniscient narrator is in the Russian tradition of a skaz, or an oral anecdote: a befuddled, foolish raconteur who nevertheless has access to a certain skewed truth. This style of narrator has heirs in figures as varied as the writer Mark Twain and the comedian Sacha Baron Cohen.

This style of narration is also an accurate reflection of how we perceive the world. We all approach reality with certain prejudices and grievances, which limit us from fully seeing or listening to one another: “There is no world save the one we make with our minds, and the mind’s predisposition determines the type of world we see” (357). Moreover, we are all complicit in societal rules that we often do not sufficiently question, giving rise to a “consensus reality” (350). Saunders compares the mostly well-meaning but powerless officials in “The Nose” to officials in Nazi Germany, many of who were conventional ordinary people: “well-mannered, abashed-but-willing parts of the Nazi machine” (372). 

Nevertheless, “Gogol’s main currency is joy” (379): delight in his writing’s clumsy poetry, as well as in its “universal logic” (376), which holds true “in all times and places,” making Gogol an “eternal” writer (378). According to this logic, rationality is provisional: “an assumption of rationality holds under normal conditions but frays under duress” (377).

Saunders ends the essay by discussing the story’s ending. As the narrator admits to his own confusion, he earns the reader’s trust in a way that a more certain-seeming narrator would not: “As the narrator [...] looks askance at his own story with increasing perplexity, expressing the same reservations we’ve been feeling but suppressing [...] I feel my residual reservations falling away” (383).

“Afterthought 5” Summary and Analysis

Saunders continues describing his own writing process. He once wrote a story titled “Jon,” which was inspired by a clumsy student essay that he read. The voice of the teenaged narrator in “Jon” began as an imitation of this student’s writing, but gradually expanded as Saunders introduced more and more precipitating events into the story.

Saunders eventually found himself writing about such themes as consumerism and advertising; however, this was not his intention at the outset. Instead of following a clear direction, he had instead only been “following a voice” (390), a method that he likes to believe Gogol employed as well. Saunders advises writers to proceed in a similar way: if not by “following a voice,” then by following their own “strong opinions” (390), or writerly proclivities . By focusing on one’s own inclinations and obsessions, a writer escapes the trap of worrying too much about the big picture: “The idea is that with her attention focused on the thing that delights her [...] she’s less likely to know too well what she’s doing and indulge in that knowing-in-advance that [...] has a tendency to deaden a work and turn it into a lecture” (390).

A writer’s job is to bring the reader into a “black box” (387) in which significant diverting things happen. However, a writer cannot worry too much about the overarching design of this structure: “If I think of a story as something that has to convey a certain message [...] it’s too much. I freeze up and there is no fun to be had” (392). Rather, a writer should focus on enjoying themselves and trusting their writerly instincts, with the faith that a reader’s enjoyment will follow. (For more on the writing process, see Writing Advice in the Themes section of this guide.)

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text