Who's intellectually well-equipped enough to define poverty? The answer is; no one. Who should we consult when this question begs at all of us, even the most reasonable? Maybe William T. Vollmann? Maybe base curiosity is the best sensibility to have when asking this question? So many questions arise. The symptoms, according to Vollmann, seem to be invisibility, deformity, "unwantedness", dependence, accident-prone-ness, pain, numbness, estrangement, and amortization. And how poetically defined these poverty stricken maladies are. Organized throughout a sociological survey of what poverty essentially entails, and more importantly means, Vollmann seeks, if nothing else, to comment on the how and why of people living hand-to-mouth. Montaigne opines, Agee opines, Orwell opines, etc. All of them, in their own way, have mentioned the problem, sought to analyze it, and have ultimately failed in their self-assured assessments. And so, but Vollmann achieves profound insight in paradoxical commentary; something that he's notoriously well known for.
Sunnee's plight strikes the reader with an almost immediate sense of conviction. She is the most obvious example of one who struggles, lives cognizant of her struggle, and basically cannot change. Surely it's the cheap Thai whiskey that aids her rest every evening. It's possibly because she can't read or write (her own name if nothing else). It's also possibly because her day-to-day existence is only perpetuated, and entirely dependent upon, her depraved desire to continue living. What of her daughter, the beautiful and hopeful Vimonrat? Will Vimonrat suffer the same series of ups and downs and disappointments of her mother? It's possible, almost apparently inevitable, taking into consideration her plight, and the plight of her family and lineage. Yet Sunnee isn't really poor, especially when her situation is comparatively assessed by her contemporaries; she has furniture at all. This is Vollmann's most powerful human study in the book, and they only get worse, or better as the case may be in context.
And Natalia. Such a sad Soviet case, mirroring Dostoevsky's Prince Mishkin in her unavoidable depravity. Then again, what if no police officer or local were to acknowledge her epileptic condition? Bad things happened to her as well. So many unfortunate tragedies, that to list them all, would be utterly tragic in itself. She's a bit more aware than Sunnee seems, albeit seemingly incapable of doing anything about it, her problem that is, the difficulty of not being able to adequately explain her illness.
Also ...
"If you hadn't gone to Chernobyl, what would your life be like today?
I would continue building houses, he shrugged. I would be able to have a decent job, and enough money."
If I hadn't been thrown into this horrible situation, one which seems to perpetuate itself in such an effortless manner, then maybe I could live well, be happier, eventually accomplish something, etc.
This in mind, Vollmann risks sounding like an overzealous bleeding heart; a privileged journalist merely snacking on the destitution of his subjects. But, as is the case with most of Vollmann's non-fiction, he manages to lacerate himself in the most naked, Bourdieuian sense. He offers meager financial aid, as he admits in a majority of the vignettes of Poor People, subsequently realizing that his help is frustratingly ineffectual. If he offers Sunnee money, then she will spend all of it on drink, even if the intention is to help Vimonrat with her education, even if Sunnee understands this. Which also seems like the typical Vollmann anti-solution; to comment upon a paradoxically convoluted social problem, offering, not answers and solutions, but useful commentary.
Both Sunnee and Natalia's predicaments stand as the strongest examples of poverty in the book. Vollmann proceeds to explore a world full of marginal fringe-dwellers and hopeless cases. He's sympathetic for sure, and his sympathy is honest, in that it confronts the impossibility of potential solutions. Capitalism never bodes well for a Vollmann subject, then again, neither does communism, or for that matter, unfortunate circumstances that can only be evaluated on ambiguous terms. Which works so well for a book that addresses such a difficult topic.
Poverty has so many dimensions of understanding. There is no universal definition that does it justice. Like so many of the world's ills and woes, it's a social malady that can, if nothing else, merely be reflected upon by some of the great thinkers of time. Vollman is one of them, traditionally and otherwise. Someone bold enough to address such complicated problems, yet honest enough to admit that he's not going to come up with a solution anytime soon. Who really has though? Appropriately enough, he cites Orwell in his introduction, and he definitely has his affinities with such morally upright thinkers such as Agee and Steinbeck, so is it really any wonder that Vollmann, much like his predecessors can merely offer helpful thoughts on the subject? Not really, because the joy in reading his books is in acquiring insight from a writer who has no delusions about what he is capable of when it comes to saving the world.