When reading Zoshchenko’s poems, I found Poverty to be particularly salient, especially once the lights were turned on and the detriments of the main character’s living conditions were exposed. I believe that this story was an allegory for how some people react to their society when they are made aware of their society’s shortcomings, with some actively working to make it better, while others prefer not to expend that effort, but to go back into a state where they can ignore those shortcomings.
The main character’s belief that he was living in luxury made it all the more painful for him when he realized that he was living in squalor. Despite this, he put his nose to the grindstone and renovated his living quarters, putting all his money and time into ensuring that his room was clean, presentable, and comfortable to live in with the lights on. He represents the kind of person that, when confronted with issues the society is facing, chooses to engage with them and try to make his life better. My belief in this representation is bolstered by the fact that they were just starting to build up the Soviet Union, so I believe that he represents the kind of person who took part in that.
His actions are in stark contrast to the landlady, however, who chose to return to the literal dark ages when her electric lights reveal that her apartment was disgusting. She didn’t want to put the work in to fix her living situation though, so she chose to continue living that way, but without lights so she couldn’t see how she was living. Not only did she refuse to improve her life and living space, but she refused to allow others to keep the luxuries that let them enjoy their newfound cleanliness and organization. I believe that she is meant to represent those who refuse to accept the new society because it exposes current issues, and they don’t want to work to make their society better. This could also be read more directly with the woman as a stand-in for traditional values standing in the way of technological innovation, but given the time this was written, I believe Poverty was meant to be an allegory for how some people actively try to improve society, while others try to shut out problems and hold the improvers back.
I think this short story is particularly interesting to view as a commentary on Soviet society at the time, if we take the “lights off” state to be pre-revolutionary Russia and the “lights on” to be post-revolution. In this case, Zoshchenko seems to be saying that any struggles that the new Soviet Russia has now aren’t new struggles, they are just being revealed by this societal transformation. He seems to be criticizing the people who the landlady represents – in his mind, if they don’t like their current situation, they should work to fix it. However, I do not know how fair this critique actually is.
I think that denial is a salient theme in Zoshchenko’s short stories and his contrast between the narrator and his landlady highlight the stark contrast between those who try to live in the past and those striving to improve the world around them. The narrator makes a strong argument for the latter perspective asking “how could I move after throwing away all that money for decorating?” This statement makes a strong assertion about the necessity of everyone moving toward change. When people refuse to see the poverty they are living in and “turn off the lights” for their entire building, it hinders the work of the people working toward improving their lives.
Poverty is an excellent example of satirical writing. It’s a relatively smooth read, and at times there is even humor: “What’s the good of lighting up such misery– so the bedbugs can have a good laugh” (211). However, as Gabe already stated, it reveals a people’s reluctance to notice the filth and failings of their own societies. The electrification movement may have seemed positive at first, Zoshchenko calls it a ‘fad’, but in reality it was poorly executed and allowed soviet citizens to see the true colors of their government. The last line sums these emotions up perfectly: “Yes, my friends, light is a good thing, but sometimes it’s not good either” (212)
I think these are very interesting points. The landlady did hold the main character from improving his life and he could not do anything about it. On a separate point, I found it interesting that the landlady could go back to living in a room that she knows is filthy. It was understandable when she was ignorant to the mess but when she knows of the bedbugs and stains seems wrong. This may further your point that the landlady is a part of society that try to shut out the problems.
Gabe, I think you make some very keen observations about the poem “Poverty”. The main character’s tenacity and aspirations to live a better life are fully on display when he decides to renovate the place, and I also believe this is analogous to the contemporary reformation of governance and society in Russia. The landlady, on the other hand, chooses a more ‘ignorance is bliss’ approach to her quarters, opting to live with the lights off so as not to expose the horrific state of her home. Whether there is a satirical motive alluding to those refuting the revolution is debatable, but I do definitely think the main character is serving as a trope for the broader community of Russians striving for a better life.