The stories, “The Housing Crisis” and “Poverty” by Zoshchenko, had a very simple style to identify problems in Russian society. In “The Housing Crisis,” it seemed as if a bathroom was plenty for a family with a child to comfortably live. I thought it was funny when the wife was talking about putting a partition, boudoir, and dining room all in one bathroom. The addition of members to the family and obstacles to the living situation came so easily. As these obstacles appeared, the living space of the man decreased more and more. This indicated the hardship of the living space in Moscow if someone progressed in their life by marrying and having a child. Also, the ease of the hardship that finally made the man leave the bathroom emphasized the pain of living in such a small space. In “Poverty,” something so simple as light indicated the poverty in the mansion. The extra light exposed the bedbugs, stains and rips in the furniture and walls. The landlady did not have the money to pay clean up her room so she cut the wiring in the building. In these two stories, the simplicity of events that occurred emphasized the meaning of the story. The hardship of the housing was displayed the addition of obstacles that limited the space of the man. The simplicity of light showing the dirtiness of the rooms indicated poverty.
5 thoughts on “Simplicity in Stories by Zoshchenko”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think the humor and simplicity of these stories, like you point out, make the severe poverty Zoshchenko describes both impossible to ignore and easier to face. He uses both of these devices to give the reader absolutely no excuse but to reckon with the horrific suffering his characters are no doubt enduring.
I think you make an interesting point about how these characters force the reader to confront their dire circumstances. The use of satirical elements through the nonchalant and almost cheerful way the narrators talk about their lives and housing situations highlights how severe their poverty is and how ingrained it has become in their daily lives.
I think you all made great points. The simple overtones are utilized in a way that brings attention to the extreme poverty the characters are forced to live in. Even the usage of light in “Poverty”, as you have mentioned, highlights and emphasizes some of the things we today associate with a dilapidated living situation, such as bed bugs. The titles themselves nudge the reader to this association, too.
I get the sense that the simple presentation sometimes satirizes the emerging didactic tone of Soviet culture. Take for instance “Earthquake.” In the closing paragraphs (219), an external narrator appraises Zoshchenko’s work to be a temperance message. Clearly, this is not a legitimate work of paratext, seeing as it is spliced into the narrative and disavows any connection to Zoshchenko by referring to him as “the author.” Furthermore, the narrative conspicuously invites more nuanced readings: the earthquake might an allegory of the Russian revolution, an event that figuratively rattled the countryside and produced comparable suffering in the short-run; the dearth of clothes could be a sign of abundant poverty or the looming threat of death by exposure (as seen in “The Cave”); the portrayal of harm in terms of rubles rather than injuries or humiliations sustained (as a commentary on the state’s growing apathy toward individual wellness), and so forth. In half-heartedly rejecting these readings of events, the text emphasizes how merits literature suffers under the state’s mounting censorship.
I too found the simplicity in Zoshchenko’s stories to be quite pleasant, allowing for an ostensibly comedic or interesting premise, while still delivering social and economic commentary when you read into it. In many ways, it’s much like The Nose, where there is a simple story that is outwardly comedic and absurd, but hides a more critical viewpoint underneath that humor. In another sense, the simplicity of the stories made clear the simplicity that the characters were living, with one man going to and from work living in a dark room, while the other story had a family living together in a bathroom. Their simple lives mirrored the simplicity of the stories themselves